Court allows crucifix in classrooms

alex73

Finally some common sense from the highest legal authority. binding on all 47 countries of EU council.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0318/breaking45.html

PDN

I misread the thread title as "Court allows crucifixion in classrooms". In my day getting whacked with a cane was the worst they were allowed to do to you.

Soul Winner

Sort of a good thing in a sense. I don't go for crucifixes myself but I'm all for Catholic schools having the right to have one hanging somewhere in their classrooms if they so choose in the same way that non-catholic schools should have the right to abstain from hanging them.

If state run schools have symbols of the state's official religion displayed on walls then that should be their right.

If on the other hand schools are state run where there is no official religion of that state then those state run schools should not have any kind of symbolism that promotes any particular religion or world view.

Is the crucifix a 'symbol of the continent’s historic and cultural roots' though? That's debatable as well I think.

georgieporgy

Presumably the Lautsi family will now leave Europe and move to ,say, Saudi Arabia or China where their children will not be so cruelly traumatised in the classroom. Unless of course the kids have already been irreversible damaged.

caseyann

Delighted proper order,disgraceful it was even considered.

K-9

Makes sense.

Now no moaning about people wearing turbans etc. and that's fair enough.

strobe

Did anyone above read the judgement before replying to the thread?

K-9

strobe wrote: »

Did anyone above read the judgement before replying to the thread?

You have to read these things?

Sure that didn't stop a 10 page thread or whatever it was thread on the threat of this being upheld!

It's amazing now people get exercised when a threat of "rights" get taken away get involved!

strobe

K-9 wrote: »

You have to read these things?

Sure that didn't stop a 10 page thread or whatever it was thread on the threat of this being upheld!

It's amazing now people get exercised when a threat of "rights" get taken away get involved!

Sorry K9, I don't understand that. What you are saying.

K-9

strobe wrote: »

Sorry K9, I don't understand that. What you are saying.

LOL I don't know what you are saying either! It's late!:o

Can you explain a bit more?

strobe

K-9 wrote: »

LOL I don't know what you are saying either! It's late!:o

Can you explain a bit more?

Probably best we just eject ourselves from the forum so.

If you don't understand me and I don't understand you at this point, it will only get worse..... things could get messy.

K-9

strobe wrote: »

Probably best we just eject ourselves from the forum so.

If you don't understand me and I don't understand you at this point, it will only get worse..... things could get messy.

But isn't that the point of AH? Things get messy and we never understand each other?

Sure where's the entertainment value? It's a bit boring.

Are you the defender of all things RC and I'm a raging secularist, with no morals?

Or shall we swap?

strobe

K-9 wrote: »

But isn't that the point of AH? Things get messy and we never understand each other?

Sure where's the entertainment value? It's a bit boring.

Are you the defender of all things RC and I'm a raging secularist, with no morals?

Or shall we swap?

(this isn't AH man. lol )

I'm a raging Pope with secularist morals btw.

K-9

strobe wrote: »

(this isn't AH man. lol )

I'm a raging Pope with secularist morals btw.

Fecking RSS Reader!

I might sit back and watch!

Though I stand by my point, people get up in arms when rights get endangered!

I see it as equal rights for everybody, either ban the whole lot or allow all religions. Once it's equality, I'm happy!

strobe

K-9 wrote: »

: Once it's equality, I'm happy!

Agreed.

Cawk n bawllz

Well then they'd better allow all other religious symbols in the classroom. The crucifix, a buddha statue, images of all of the gods of hindu believe, the scientology symbol and whatever other religious symbols you have.
They'd all look nice on a little shrine in the classroom.

Crucifix on its own though? No.
Either all of them or none.

caseyann

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Well then they'd better allow all other religious symbols in the classroom. The crucifix, a buddha statue, images of all of the gods of hindu believe, the scientology symbol and whatever other religious symbols you have.
They'd all look nice on a little shrine in the classroom.

Crucifix on its own though? No.
Either all of them or none.

Why should catholic schools allow them symbols?

Cawk n bawllz

caseyann wrote: »

Why should catholic schools allow them symbols?

Because kids of all religions go to those schools. And education should be secular. Leave religion out of schools altogether. Let religion be taught by parents and the church if people so wish to go there.

partyatmygaff

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Well then they'd better allow all other religious symbols in the classroom. The crucifix, a buddha statue, images of all of the gods of hindu believe, the scientology symbol and whatever other religious symbols you have.
They'd all look nice on a little shrine in the classroom.

Crucifix on its own though? No.
Either all of them or none.

Any reason for that?

The schools that have crucifixes in classrooms or other small religious symbols are usually schools with a religious heritage or schools originally started by Religious groups. It's just a symbol to signify the heritage and presumably the ethos of the school.

It's nothing to do with the religion of the pupils or indeed even the teachers or management. It's to do with the background and history of the school.

caseyann

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Because kids of all religions go to those schools. And education should be secular. Leave religion out of schools altogether. Let religion be taught by parents and the church if people so wish to go there.

eh yeah hahahaha Muslim schools etc... wont even let people of other religious denominations in them.
If they send their kids to them schools and those countries then they should just live with it.No one forced them.

A huge part of school for kids is communion and confirmation time of enjoying their religion.And celebrating their graduation in their religion.Apart of their lives and history and heritage.

caseyann

Funny i would love to see them force a Muslim school to stick up a cross and a budha statue.It would be all then they have no right to.Or in a Jewish school lmao.
Funny how it only applies in catholic countries which they are of high history of catholicism and faith.

Cawk n bawllz

caseyann wrote: »

eh yeah hahahaha Muslim schools etc... wont even let people of other religious denominations in them.
If they send their kids to them schools and those countries then they should just live with it.No one forced them.

A huge part of school for kids is communion and confirmation time of enjoying their religion.And celebrating their graduation in their religion.Apart of their lives and history and heritage.

Actually they are forced. It's mandatory in Ireland for kids to attend school by law. And everyone is entitled to a good education. A good education however is not having an hour or more of your day wasted listening to beliefs rather than being taught factual information and critical thinking.

You're right. In Ireland communion and confirmation are a big part of school. And it shouldn't be. Education should be the primary focus in school. I clearly remember that clash when the teacher was trying to teach us about creationism in religion class and then evolution in science class. It's needlessly confusing kids.
Also, originally kids weren't confirmed til they were 16 but then as the country developed they brought the age down to 12. Why? Because 16 year olds have a heightened ability to smell bull**** and it'd be harder to put them through the confirmation process.

caseyann

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Actually they are forced. It's mandatory in Ireland for kids to attend school by law. And everyone is entitled to a good education. A good education however is not having an hour or more of your day wasted listening to beliefs rather than being taught factual information and critical thinking.

You're right. In Ireland communion and confirmation are a big part of school. And it shouldn't be. Education should be the primary focus in school. I clearly remember that clash when the teacher was trying to teach us about creationism in religion class and then evolution in science class. It's needlessly confusing kids.
Also, originally kids weren't confirmed til they were 16 but then as the country developed they brought the age down to 12. Why? Because 16 year olds have a heightened ability to smell bull**** and it'd be harder to put them through the confirmation process.

They were forced to move to a country with high catholic denomination? RUBBISH

You seem to be also under the delusion that more people in Ireland dont believe in religion then they do.You would be mistaken.

Cawk n bawllz

caseyann wrote: »

They were forced to move to a country with high catholic denomination? RUBBISH

I have no idea for what reason people chose to move to this country, I meant they are forced to attend school here by law. Pretty sure you knew that but you're just setting up a strawman argument to distract from the fact that you have no legitimate response to my last post.
But if you do I would love to hear it.

partyatmygaff

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Actually they are forced. It's mandatory in Ireland for kids to attend school by law.

I bet they're forced to stare at religious symbols all day. To a non-Christian all that a cross is is two perpendicular pieces of wood. They aren't being "offended" by anything. They just dislike all religions but their own.

A good education however is not having an hour or more of your day wasted listening to beliefs rather than being taught factual information and critical thinking.

Many would disagree with that style of thinking. First and foremost, religion is usually taught on a weekly basis. I attended primary school during the early 00s and we spent no more than one hour a week or so on Religion (Saving for the week running up to Communion where we spent at most an hour every two days). Regardless of what you think of Religion the fact remains that 97.5% (Approximately) of the planet are Religious and the number increases by the day. Children need to learn numeracy and literacy of course but they also need to learn information that is relevant to society and dealing with other people. They will have to deal with people of Religious beliefs for all their lives and as such they need to understand their beliefs so as to ease communication. In any case, Religious education is not the topic of this thread so let's leave that out.

Also, originally kids weren't confirmed til they were 16 but then as the country developed they brought the age down to 12. Why? Because 16 year olds have a heightened ability to smell bull**** and it'd be harder to put them through the confirmation process.

Of course... because confirmation ties people in forever in to religious belief. It's not as if their brains are being reprogrammed when they are "put through" confirmation. Sensationalism and rubbish of that sort don't add much to people's posts.

Cawk n bawllz

caseyann wrote: »

You seem to be also under the delusion that more people in Ireland dont believe in religion then they do.You would be mistaken.

Delusion? Really? I see that most people believe in god alright. That's called being agnostic. Belief in religion? No. Most people just have gone through confirmation and sort of stopped at that, myself included, but hardly anyone under 40 goes to mass any more and every year the number of people entering priesthood declines.

partyatmygaff

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

I have no idea for what reason people chose to move to this country, I meant they are forced to attend school here by law. Pretty sure you knew that but you're just setting up a strawman argument to distract from the fact that you have no legitimate response to my last post.
But if you do I would love to hear it.

Answer me this question with regard to religious symbols and religious symbols only (I.e. don't go off on tangents to cloud the discussion).

Let's say a Muslim is being educated in a school originally founded by a religious order. There is a small crucifix near the roof above the blackboard in their classroom.

How exactly is the child's education suffering by the presence of two perpendicular pieces of wood hanging above a blackboard? If they're being "oppressed" by objects that mean nothing to them then they have no understanding of the word "oppression".

caseyann

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Delusion? Really? I see that most people believe in god alright. That's called being agnostic. Belief in religion? No. Most people just have gone through confirmation and sort of stopped at that, myself included, but hardly anyone under 40 goes to mass any more and every year the number of people entering priesthood declines.

Yes a huge delusion.
Christenings and parents want to carry it on in school and have you been to a mass in Ireland recently go look.;)

Cawk n bawllz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I bet they're forced to stare at religious symbols all day. To a non-Christian all that a cross is is two perpendicular pieces of wood. They aren't being "offended" by anything. They just dislike all religions but their own.

Many would disagree with that style of thinking. First and foremost, religion is usually taught on a weekly basis. I attended primary school during the early 00s and we spent no more than one hour a week or so on Religion (Saving for the week running up to Communion where we spent at most an hour every two days). Regardless of what you think of Religion the fact remains that 97.5% (Approximately) of the planet are Religious and the number increases by the day. Children need to learn numeracy and literacy of course but they also need to learn information that is relevant to society and dealing with other people. They will have to deal with people of Religious beliefs for all their lives and as such they need to understand their beliefs so as to ease communication. In any case, Religious education is not the topic of this thread so let's leave that out.


Of course... because confirmation ties people in forever in to religious belief. It's not as if their brains are being reprogrammed when they are "put through" confirmation. Sensationalism and rubbish of that sort don't add much to people's posts.

Well I guess I mispoke. They are forced to attend school by law.
When I was in primary school they taught an hour of religion every day. And true, it's fine having a little cross in a school. And I'm saying it's also fine to have a couple of other religious symbols around the place too.
"but they also need to learn information that is relevant to society and dealing with other people"
In no part of my day in the last number of years has religion been relevant to me and I don't need to fear god in order to treat other people right.
"They will have to deal with people of Religious beliefs for all their lives and as such they need to understand their beliefs so as to ease communication"
Okay so how come I wasn't taught the fine details of the beliefs of every other religion when I was at school throughout the 90s?
And before that they taught kids that living any other life but a Christian one was the path of evil for which they'd burn in hell.
Since then they cleaned up their PR.
And how convenient for you that you can twist what I mean around. Nice escape tactic there.

partyatmygaff

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

When I was in primary school they taught an hour of religion every day.

Times have changed. I attended primary school from 1998-2006. Religion was given as much time as arts and crafts which is around an hour or so a week IIRC.

And true, it's fine having a little cross in a school.

There we go then. That's the point of the thread.

"but they also need to learn information that is relevant to society and dealing with other people"
In no part of my day in the last number of years has religion been relevant to me and I don't need to fear god in order to treat other people right.

You're strawmanning now. There's no need to believe in Religion to learn about people's religious beliefs. A lack of education breeds intolerance. But again, education isn't the point of this thread. It's religious symbols that are being discussed.

"They will have to deal with people of Religious beliefs for all their lives and as such they need to understand their beliefs so as to ease communication"
Okay so how come I wasn't taught the fine details of the beliefs of every other religion when I was at school throughout the 90s?

Beats me. Fact of the matter is that things have changed. I am not a Catholic but I attended a Catholic school alongside four other non-Catholics. In fact, I distinctly remember doing a project on the Aztecs and their religious and cultural practices. Obviously it wasn't in any great detail but then again, what more can you expect of nine year olds?

And how convenient for you that you can twist what I mean around. Nice escape tactic there.

Escape tactic? What am I escaping from?

Cawk n bawllz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Answer me this question with regard to religious symbols and religious symbols only (I.e. don't go off on tangents to cloud the discussion).

Let's say a Muslim is being educated in a school originally founded by a religious order. There is a small crucifix near the roof above the blackboard in their classroom.

How exactly is the child's education suffering by the presence of two perpendicular pieces of wood hanging above a blackboard? If they're being "oppressed" by objects that mean nothing to them then they have no understanding of the word "oppression".

I don't think I ever mention oppression and I went off in a tangent in my replies to Caseyann. But in fairness I don't think talking about religion in school is going far off the mark in a thread about a crucifix being allowed in a classroom.
If, as you say, education is only taught once a week in primary schools now that's great.
But to have it in a school at all is damaging to a child's development of critical thinking and independent thought given the sort of nonsense that the bible and Christianity imposes on people.
"If they're being "oppressed" by objects that mean nothing to them then they have no understanding of the word "oppression""
That sentence doesn't make logical sense but I think I know what you're trying to say.

And all I was saying was that if they're gonna have a crucifix there then put all of the other religious symbols there too. Multiculturalism, diversity, a progressive society. Or just no symbols at all.
A school founded by a religious organisation though and they just have their symbols in the classroom, yes I can understand what's going on there. But I don't agree with it.

Cawk n bawllz

I don't really know what you're escaping from but throwing a strawman in here and there does nothing to help your argument.

caseyann

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

I don't think I ever mention oppression and I went off in a tangent in my replies to Caseyann. But in fairness I don't think talking about religion in school is going far off the mark in a thread about a crucifix being allowed in a classroom.
If, as you say, education is only taught once a week in primary schools now that's great.
But to have it in a school at all is damaging to a child's development of critical thinking and independent thought given the sort of nonsense that the bible and Christianity imposes on people.
"If they're being "oppressed" by objects that mean nothing to them then they have no understanding of the word "oppression""
That sentence doesn't make logical sense but I think I know what you're trying to say.

And all I was saying was that if they're gonna have a crucifix there then put all of the other religious symbols there too. Multiculturalism, diversity, a progressive society. Or just no symbols at all.
A school founded by a religious organisation though and they just have their symbols in the classroom, yes I can understand what's going on there. But I don't agree with it.

And my point was it wont happen in Muslim,Jewish schools etc.. they wouldnt even allow a person of another denomination in the school.Where as catholic schools do.
It is nothing more then trying to force oppression on the cultural denomination and history if that country.
But if was shoe on other foot would be whole different ball game.

Cawk n bawllz

caseyann wrote: »

And my point was it wont happen in Muslim,Jewish schools etc.. they wouldnt even allow a person of another denomination in the school.Where as catholic schools do.
It is nothing more then trying to force oppression on the cultural denomination and history if that country.
But if was shoe on other foot would be whole different ball game.

Oh I'm not just picking on Catholicism. I disagree with any school which strongly incorporates any religion. Unless, of course, it's actually a school solely about religion.

partyatmygaff

If, as you say, education is only taught once a week in primary schools now that's great.

If they taught education only once a week in primary schools that'd be a fairly big problem...

But to have it in a school at all is damaging to a child's development of critical thinking and independent thought given the sort of nonsense that the bible and Christianity imposes on people.

That's quite a good bit of hyperbole. But anyway, that aside, surely you appreciate that what you view as being nonsense is not viewed as nonsense by many others? Irish is viewed as nonsense and as a waste of time. Does that mean Irish should not be taught in schools? Another thing, how exactly does the teaching of Religion hamper the development of critical thinking and independent thought. Surely if that were the case there would be no criticism of the RCC as people would have hampered abilities of critical thought due to passing through the Irish education system.

"If they're being "oppressed" by objects that mean nothing to them then they have no understanding of the word "oppression""
That sentence doesn't make logical sense but I think I know what you're trying to say.

It doesn't make logical sense? I wouldn't agree with that, how is my message unclear in what you quoted?

And all I was saying was that if they're gonna have a crucifix there then put all of the other religious symbols there too.

Why? The reason, first and foremost, for the presence of a cross in some schools is that the school was often founded by a religious order and as such the symbol represents the heritage of the school. It isn't only to do with the religion of the pupils.

Multiculturalism, diversity, a progressive society.

That sounds great and everything but what do you mean by "progressive"? Progress towards what exactly? Saying "progressive" on its own means nothing as society is always progressing, it's dynamic and fluid and doesn't stop changing. If it is progress towards a bland "appease the world" form of pseudo-utopia then that is regress in my eyes.

A school founded by a religious organisation though and they just have their symbols in the classroom, yes I can understand what's going on there. But I don't agree with it.

What do you expect them to do? Erase their heritage? Forget the people who made the school what it is? We shouldn't just bow to pressure and erase our heritage in a futile attempt to appease people who never cease to be offended.

partyatmygaff

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

I don't really know what you're escaping from

Then what is your basis for saying I am trying to escape from the argument? Or is it, as I suspect, merely you trying to make it look as if i'm incapable of arguing my point to try and make your own argument sound better?

but throwing a strawman in here and there does nothing to help your argument.

Words based on nothing mean nothing.

Cawk n bawllz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If they taught education only once a week in primary schools that'd be a fairly big problem...

Why?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's quite a good bit of hyperbole. But anyway, that aside, surely you appreciate that what you view as being nonsense is not viewed as nonsense by many others? Irish is viewed as nonsense and as a waste of time. Does that mean Irish should not be taught in schools? Another thing, how exactly does the teaching of Religion hamper the development of critical thinking and independent thought. Surely if that were the case there would be no criticism of the RCC as people would have hampered abilities of critical thought due to passing through the Irish education system.

Well yes. When people start thinking it's nonsense I'm sure it is a good time to just let it go. It's a fast dying language but that's off topic.
How religion hampers the development of critical thinking and independent thought:
They teach you science, maths, etc. at school which were all founded on the study of the natural world. But then you come along with this book full of stories of a magic man in the sky who toyed around with humanity for thousands of years to teach them who's boss and then try to shoe-horn reasoning into the stories and then tell the child that this is also fact and they should believe this also... then you're confusing the child rather than setting him or her on the right path to being an intelligent and reasonable human being. In fairness I will say however that the bible is not shoved down kids throats as much as it used to be or as much as other religions impose their beliefs on kids.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It doesn't make logical sense? I wouldn't agree with that, how is my message unclear in what you quoted?

"If they're being "oppressed" by objects that mean nothing to them then they have no understanding of the word "oppression""
Firstly... I never mentioned oppression. Thanks for that little strawman there. If they see a symbol that means nothing to them... then that means they have no understanding of this word. That's what your sentence said but I understand that you might have mispoke. So shall we agree to not dwell on this one?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why? The reason, first and foremost, for the presence of a cross in some schools is that the school was often founded by a religious order and as such the symbol represents the heritage of the school. It isn't only to do with the religion of the pupils.

Well... the cross is not exclusive to the heritage of the school it's displayed in. And if the cross is there as a sign of heritage why isn't it there among memorabilia of the founders of the school, its builders, the history of the town etc.? It is fundamentally a symbol that this is a Christian school.
I will admit however that my argument right there is somewhat pedantic.
A little cross in a classroom, you're right. No harm. All I was saying was they should put the rest up too. Equality and multiculturalism.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That sounds great and everything but what do you mean by "progressive"? Progress towards what exactly? Saying "progressive" on its own means nothing as society is always progressing, it's dynamic and fluid and doesn't stop changing. If it is progress towards a bland "appease the world" form of pseudo-utopia then that is regress in my eyes.

Actually some places never change. Ever been to one of the little culchie villages dotted around the country? Full of uneducated xenophobes with little tolerance for anything beyond the confines of their little country lane. The only thing that's changed in the past hundred years is that they have mobile phones and TVs. They're still astonishingly narrowminded. Those would be the opposite of progressive. Progressing into what? Well... taking down the barriers that set us apart and progressing towards a peacefully co-existing human race who embrace reasoning and logic to solve our problems and not "What would my cult do in this situation?".
Would you or would you not agree that religion is a huge barrier between people and has been the cause of many of the wars throughout human history?
My apologies on taking this thread on an oh-so-awful tangent but you wanted my reply and there it is, sir.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What do you expect them to do? Erase their heritage? Forget the people who made the school what it is? We shouldn't just bow to pressure and erase our heritage in a futile attempt to appease people who never cease to be offended.

Oh look! Another strawman! The crucifix is a symbol of Christianity. Not who founded the school and created its heritage. Getting rid of a piece of wood on a wall OR adding the other symbols alongside it isn't erasing the heritage of a school.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Then what is your basis for saying I am trying to escape from the argument? Or is it, as I suspect, merely you trying to make it look as if i'm incapable of arguing my point to try and make your own argument sound better?

Your strawman arguments are the basis of my saying you're trying to escape from the argument. Pointed out 2 just there are you threw in a few others as well but its unecessary hassle to read through all of this again.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Words based on nothing mean nothing.

Apply this logic to the bible and see what you get.
Oh and your strawman arguments too.

partyatmygaff

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Why?

Re-read the part of the post that I quoted. Carefully.

How religion hampers the development of critical thinking and independent thought:
They teach you science, maths, etc. at school which were all founded on the study of the natural world. But then you come along with this book full of stories of a magic man in the sky who toyed around with humanity for thousands of years to teach them who's boss and then try to shoe-horn reasoning into the stories and then tell the child that this is also fact and they should believe this also... then you're confusing the child rather than setting him or her on the right path to being an intelligent and reasonable human being. In fairness I will say however that the bible is not shoved down kids throats as much as it used to be or as much as other religions impose their beliefs on kids.

But surely being presented with supposedly conflicting viewpoints would stimulate their critical thought? Being spoon fed science and facts doesn't bode well for critical thought.

"If they're being "oppressed" by objects that mean nothing to them then they have no understanding of the word "oppression""
Firstly... I never mentioned oppression. Thanks for that little strawman there.

It wasn't you that mentioned oppression. I was referring to the case in general.

If they see a symbol that means nothing to them... then that means they have no understanding of this word. That's what your sentence said but I understand that you might have mispoke. So shall we agree to not dwell on this one?

No I did not misspeak. You misunderstood my post. Let me reiterate

If they feel they are being "oppressed" by objects that hold no relevance to them then they have no understanding of the meaning of the word "oppression". I do not see how can there can be any ambiguity over the meaning of what I said.

Well... the cross is not exclusive to the heritage of the school it's displayed in. And if the cross is there as a sign of heritage why isn't it there among memorabilia of the founders of the school, its builders, the history of the town etc.?

The founders of the school chose the cross as a symbol to best represent the heritage of the school. That's their choice.

I will admit however that my argument right there is somewhat pedantic.
A little cross in a classroom, you're right. No harm. All I was saying was they should put the rest up too. Equality and multiculturalism.

The cross is there to signify the heritage of the school. If the entire class were Muslim that does not change the heritage of the school. They have every right to be proud of their school's history.

Actually some places never change.

How so? No society stays stagnant.

Ever been to one of the little culchie villages dotted around the country? Full of uneducated xenophobes with little tolerance for anything beyond the confines of their little country lane.

Generalisations based on conjecture and popular opinion isn't really suitable as a point. I'll agree that some people can be exceedingly intolerant but that's not reserved to any one particular group.

Would you or would you not agree that religion is a huge barrier between people and has been the cause of many of the wars throughout human history?

I certainly would not agree. It is not Religion that causes wars, it's the fact that some people do not accept differences in others. It is intolerance of others and their beliefs that causes wars. People fight over differences in ideology or political thinking. That does not mean that politics as a whole is a bad thing.

Oh look! Another strawman! The crucifix is a symbol of Christianity. Not who founded the school and created its heritage.

Can you stop saying strawman in every paragraph? I am not misrepresenting your position on anything.

In any case, the cross is indeed a symbol of Christianity. If the founders of the school began the school with a Christian ethos then naturally the heritage of the school is Christian and as such the appropriate symbol to signify the heritage of the school is a Christian symbol.

Getting rid of a piece of wood on a wall OR adding the other symbols alongside it isn't erasing the heritage of a school.

The founders of the school founded the school with a Christian ethos in mind. The cross symbolises the school's heritage. Removing it would be akin to trying to bury the school's heritage or hide it.

Your strawman arguments are the basis of my saying you're trying to escape from the argument.

What strawman arguments are you talking about? I am not the one who's misrepresenting the other's position to better their argument.

Apply this logic to the bible and see what you get.

Oddly enough, I find that it does not apply. Having a random jab at Christianity in a thread about religious symbols is the sign of a weak argument.

Oh and your strawman arguments too.

The non-existent ones you mean?

caseyann

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Re-read the part of the post that I quoted. Carefully.


But surely being presented with supposedly conflicting viewpoints would stimulate their critical thought? Being spoon fed science and facts doesn't bode well for critical thought.


It wasn't you that mentioned oppression. I was referring to the case in general.


No I did not misspeak. You misunderstood my post. Let me reiterate

If they feel they are being "oppressed" by objects that hold no relevance to them then they have no understanding of the meaning of the word "oppression". I do not see how can there can be any ambiguity over the meaning of what I said.

The founders of the school chose the cross as a symbol to best represent the heritage of the school. That's their choice.

The cross is there to signify the heritage of the school. If the entire class were Muslim that does not change the heritage of the school. They have every right to be proud of their school's history.

How so? No society stays stagnant.


Generalisations based on conjecture and popular opinion isn't really suitable as a point. I'll agree that some people can be exceedingly intolerant but that's not reserved to any one particular group.


I certainly would not agree. It is not Religion that causes wars, it's the fact that some people do not accept differences in others. It is intolerance of others and their beliefs that causes wars. People fight over differences in ideology or political thinking. That does not mean that politics as a whole is a bad thing.

Can you stop saying strawman in every paragraph? I am not misrepresenting your position on anything.

In any case, the cross is indeed a symbol of Christianity. If the founders of the school began the school with a Christian ethos then naturally the heritage of the school is Christian and as such the appropriate symbol to signify the heritage of the school is a Christian symbol.

The founders of the school founded the school with a Christian ethos in mind. The cross symbolises the school's heritage. Removing it would be akin to trying to bury the school's heritage or hide it.

What strawman arguments are you talking about? I am not the one who's misrepresenting the other's position to better their argument.



Oddly enough, I find that it does not apply. Having a random jab at Christianity in a thread about religious symbols is the sign of a weak argument.



The non-existent ones you mean?

More like try to oppress people into their way of thinking and wipe the original culture and ways out to please their own bigoted thoughts about that countries beliefs and culture.

Guitar_Monkey

If a parent dosn't want their child exposed to religious symbols or doctrine, then they simply shouldn't send their child to a school with a religious background. Surely you have no right to complain about a crucifix hanging on a wall if you've decided to send your kids to a christian brothers school for example ?

caseyann

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

If a parent dosn't want their child exposed to religious symbols or doctrine, then they simply shouldn't send their child to a school with a religious background. Surely you have no right to complain about a crucifix hanging on a wall if you've decided to send your kids to a christian brothers school for example ?

Exactly,you move to a predominately catholic country what do you expect to find.Centuries of teachings in schools of catholicism and embraced religion and beliefs.And should not try to force them to lose their beliefs and ways to mould to obvious bigoted attitude to what you apparently accepted when you sent your child to the school you new was of what ever religion .

Cawk n bawllz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Re-read the part of the post that I quoted. Carefully.

Yes, I've read it. It's clearly too far beyond my comprehension to understand. :rolleyes:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But surely being presented with supposedly conflicting viewpoints would stimulate their critical thought? Being spoon fed science and facts doesn't bode well for critical thought.

Young kids don't tend to argue with adults. Especially teachers. You tell them the world was created by a giant space squirrel, they believe it. And the fact that so many people in the world take religion so seriously is evidence of crippled critical thinking.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It wasn't you that mentioned oppression. I was referring to the case in general.

Were you now? Well you put it in quotations marks as if I'd said it. Easy to back out of strawman claims too.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No I did not misspeak. You misunderstood my post. Let me reiterate

If they feel they are being "oppressed" by objects that hold no relevance to them then they have no understanding of the meaning of the word "oppression". I do not see how can there can be any ambiguity over the meaning of what I said.

Because your two suppositions in that statement don't follow eachother logically. I understand that you mean if they see a symbol which means nothing then they wont feel like they're being oppressed.
But then you go on to say that this means they have no understanding of the word "oppression". They may or may not! Feeling oppressed or not is not a causal factor in if a child understands the meaning of the word or not.
I know it wasn't what you meant but that's what your syntax meant.
Like I said - didn't want to dwell on this; petty observation.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The founders of the school chose the cross as a symbol to best represent the heritage of the school. That's their choice.

The cross is there to signify the heritage of the school. If the entire class were Muslim that does not change the heritage of the school. They have every right to be proud of their school's history.

It's a symbol of religion, not history. It doesn't hold any historical information. Taking it down would not erase the history of the school or have any bearing. Look... I see what you're saying but this is only going to go in circles.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How so? No society stays stagnant.


Generalisations based on conjecture and popular opinion isn't really suitable as a point. I'll agree that some people can be exceedingly intolerant but that's not reserved to any one particular group.

Statements based on assumptions aren't really suitable as a point either.
It's not based on conjecture or popular opinion. I've had the fortune of actually living in and spending my childhood in several of these tiny culchie communities. The mindsets of the youngsters is the same as the parents' and the parents' the same as the parents before them. I know this because I've spent most of life among them. No interest in the outside world or broadening their horizons, extreme xenophobia, pessimistic attitudes. Yes, every single member of that community is not going to be the same but the community as a whole is stuck in a certain mindset.
Then there's the Muslim world. Yes they have modern technology available to them and they do have intelligent youth and not all muslim nations are Muslim fundamentalists. But they still have angry mobs of Muslim fundamentalists who believe their god will purge the western world. They still execute adulterers in accordance with Sharia law.
That's behaviour from the dark ages in this day and age. That's what I mean by a stagnant society.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I certainly would not agree. It is not Religion that causes wars, it's the fact that some people do not accept differences in others. It is intolerance of others and their beliefs that causes wars. People fight over differences in ideology or political thinking. That does not mean that politics as a whole is a bad thing.

Religion arms those so inclined with the feeling of justification and righteousness in committing atrocities. In Hitler's Mein Kampf he has stated throughout that it's God's will that he purges the Jewish menace.
And without religion how else would you persuade a person to hijack a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people? It wasn't patriotism which drove them.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Can you stop saying strawman in every paragraph? I am not misrepresenting your position on anything.

But you have done several times. I've already pointed out examples.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

In any case, the cross is indeed a symbol of Christianity. If the founders of the school began the school with a Christian ethos then naturally the heritage of the school is Christian and as such the appropriate symbol to signify the heritage of the school is a Christian symbol.

The founders of the school founded the school with a Christian ethos in mind. The cross symbolises the school's heritage. Removing it would be akin to trying to bury the school's heritage or hide it.

Okay.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What strawman arguments are you talking about? I am not the one who's misrepresenting the other's position to better their argument.

See my last post where I pointed them out.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Oddly enough, I find that it does not apply. Having a random jab at Christianity in a thread about religious symbols is the sign of a weak argument.

Yes how curious and odd that you find it does not apply....
And no. The jab at Christianity is quite separate from my argument.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The non-existent ones you mean?

I mean the existant ones which I pointed out.

Anyway, this has gone on long enough and it looks very much like it could go on for much longer. We're both strong headed, with seemingly diametrically opposing viewpoints and we're really not going to sway eachother's views.
So in favour of ending the tangent this thread has gone on(mostly my fault) and due to the fact that I'm very bored of this and you must be too (but for all I know you could be captain of the debating team at school and loving this.), go ahead and say your piece and we'll wrap this up.

partyatmygaff

Cawk n bawllz wrote: »

Yes, I've read it. It's clearly too far beyond my comprehension to understand. :rolleyes:

Can you not take a joke or something? You said that "education" is done once a week in primary schools. I said that that would be a pretty serious problem. There's no need to get so touchy.

Young kids don't tend to argue with adults. Especially teachers. You tell them the world was created by a giant space squirrel, they believe it. And the fact that so many people in the world take religion so seriously is evidence of crippled critical thinking.

No it's the fact that people have the right to think freely. If you think that religious belief is a sign of crippled critical thinking then you are seriously mistaken.

Were you now? Well you put it in quotations marks as if I'd said it. Easy to back out of strawman claims too.

Not to sound rude but you should know that quotation marks have other uses than directly quoting what others have said.

Because your two suppositions in that statement don't follow eachother logically. I understand that you mean if they see a symbol which means nothing then they wont feel like they're being oppressed.
But then you go on to say that this means they have no understanding of the word "oppression". They may or may not! Feeling oppressed or not is not a causal factor in if a child understands the meaning of the word or not.
I know it wasn't what you meant but that's what your syntax meant.
Like I said - didn't want to dwell on this; petty observation.

You still are misunderstanding what I said. They follow on to each other perfectly logically. If someone thinks that a symbol that should mean nothing to them is "oppressing" them then they clearly do not understand the true meaning of the word "oppression". It's not the technical term "oppression" that they do not understand, it is the act itself.

And without religion how else would you persuade a person to hijack a plane full of innocent people into a building full of innocent people? It wasn't patriotism which drove them.

Without politics and nationalism how would Stalin and Hitler have orchestrated WW2? People use Religion, just as they use many other things in life to manipulate people. That does not however put Religion itself at fault.

But you have done several times. I've already pointed out examples.

Examples of what? Certainly not strawmanning anyway.

Yes how curious and odd that you find it does not apply....
And no. The jab at Christianity is quite separate from my argument.

Yes how very curious... Too bad that is neither here nor there. Your jab at Christianity is in the midst of your argument. What is its purpose in this thread? If you only answer one section of my post, tell me why you decided to include a random petty jab at Christianity?

yammycat

Soul Winner wrote: »

If state run schools have symbols of the state's official religion displayed on walls then that should be their right.

That would be a very small list of states and Italy wouldn't be in it.

strobe

caseyann wrote: »

Exactly,you move to a predominately catholic country what do you expect to find.Centuries of teachings in schools of catholicism and embraced religion and beliefs.And should not try to force them to lose their beliefs and ways to mould to obvious bigoted attitude to what you apparently accepted when you sent your child to the school you new was of what ever religion .

It's not as straight forward as that. Who is talking about moving to a 'Catholic country' btw? What about the people born here? 95% plus of the schools in the country are Catholic. It isn't a matter of "just don't send your kid to a Catholic school". A lot of people have no realistic alternative.

But you will be happy to hear that there will be a lot fewer Catholic schools in the near future.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056206162

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0311/education.html

Guitar_Monkey

strobe wrote: »

It's not as straight forward as that. Who is talking about moving to a 'Catholic country' btw? What about the people born here? 95% plus of the schools in the country are Catholic. It isn't a matter of "just don't send your kid to a Catholic school". A lot of people have no realistic alternative.

But you will be happy to hear that there will be a lot fewer Catholic schools in the near future.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056206162

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0311/education.html

It is as simple as that though. Those schools were set up by Catholic organisations. They have every right to have displays of their faith. And the bottom line is that the whole situation is rediculous. Who gets offended when they see a crucifix ?? I'd understand making a fuss if say a muslim child was being forced to wear a crucifix. But it's just up on the wall. Do these people cover their eyes when they pass a church in the street ?? Do they cower if they're in the Phoenix Park and suddenly realise there's a huge cross ?? I mean....i'm a Catholic....i don't get upset if i see a statue of a Buddha ! I can appreciate the beauty in it. I respect what it means to other people. It's modern society gone mad. Political correctness
in overdrive. Also...it's very easy to knock Catholicism and Cristianity, but a lot of these schools wouldn't exist if wern't for religious orders.

strobe

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

It is as simple as that though. Those schools were set up by Catholic organisations. They have every right to have displays of their faith. And the bottom line is that the whole situation is rediculous. Who gets offended when they see a crucifix ?? I'd understand making a fuss if say a muslim child was being forced to wear a crucifix. But it's just up on the wall. Do these people cover their eyes when they pass a church in the street ?? Do they cower if they're in the Phoenix Park and suddenly realise there's a huge cross ?? I mean....i'm a Catholic....i don't get upset if i see a statue of a Buddha ! I can appreciate the beauty in it. I respect what it means to other people. It's modern society gone mad. Political correctness
in overdrive.

My post had nothing at all to say about the displaying of crucifixes in Catholic schools, so all that is wasted on me to be blunt. See the post I quoted for context.....it's all about the context. :pac:

caseyann wrote: »

obvious bigoted attitude to what you apparently accepted when you sent your child to the school you knew was of what ever religion.

=========================================================

Also...it's very easy to knock Catholicism and Cristianity, but a lot of these schools wouldn't exist if it wasn't for religious orders.

Is it very easy to knock Catholicism and Christianity? What does that tell you?

Guitar_Monkey

Strobe...

My post wasn't entirely aimed at you, but the tread in general. And it really is as simple as that. If a crucifix offends you that much, do not send your child to a Christian school. On the subject of 95% of schools being Christian ? That's a fair point. But again....if it offends you that much, don't send your kids there. Move somewhere else ! Does ireland need secular schools ? Of course it does....but that's an issue for the government to sort out. A Christian school has every right to display symbols of it's faith...just as a school of any other religion has the same right.

strobe

Guitar_Monkey wrote: »

Strobe...

My post wasn't entirely aimed at you, but the tread in general. And it really is as simple as that. If a crucifix offends you that much, do not send your child to a Christian school. On the subject of 95% of schools being Christian ? That's a fair point. But again....if it offends you that much, don't send your kids there. Move somewhere else ! Does ireland need secular schools ? Of course it does....but that's an issue for the government to sort out. A Christian school has every right to display symbols of it's faith...just as a school of any other religion has the same right.

Then if your post isn't aimed entirely at me I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote my posts in your posts man. It makes it seem like they are. I know you are a newish poster here but in general if you quote someones post on here they take it that it is them and what they have said you are responding to. Otherwise it comes across like you are using a strawman, which I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you weren't. Ye, know?

As for the second part of your post I can only really point you towards the original post of mine that you quoted, while not meaning to reply to, cause you meant to reply to the thread in general. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71261530&postcount=45

Seeing as you haven't really responded to it in either of the two replies you have made (not entirely) to it, any chance you could actually entirely aim a post at me? Because you haven't addressed a single thing I have posted, you have just kind of implied I was saying something I wasn't and then attacked that.....which they have a name for (I might have mentioned it).

Thanks.

Guitar_Monkey

Strobe...

Apologies if you felt i was attacking you. I have no intention of attacking anyone. All i'm doing is expressing frustration at the ridiculousness of the case that led to this tread. I take your point about non Catholics not having much of an altenative when it comes to chosing schools for their children. That is a problem. But it is a problem for the state to address. Not a fault of Catholic schools already in existence. Surely you would agree that they have a right to display a symbol of their faith ? That is what this tread is about at the end of the day.
I do believe there is a strong need for secular schools in modern ireland. You only have to look around and see the multi cultural society we have these days. As i have said though, that's for the state to address....and they have been slow to do so. Reading one of your links, it seems that it is being adressed as a matter of urgency. This is a good thing.
I believe a lot of the problems with the Catholic church in this country has stemmed from the level of power it has been allowed have. This should never have happened. Religion and politics should never be allowed mix. As someone earlier said....power corrupts.
Again Strobe....sorry if you felt like i was attacking you. It was never my intention. I believe everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want as long as they don't hurt or offend others. The same with debate and opinions expressed on here. As long as there is no pettyness, viciousness or intentionally winding up of people. Debate is always a good and healthy thing. People should never accept anything blindly....or because somebody else tells them to.

strobe

No need to apologise. I meant attacking my post rather than attacking me, I know you weren't attacking me....maybe 'argued against' would have been a better phrase to use than attack.

Anyway, I agree with the rest of your above post. ^ I have no problem with a school with a Catholic ethos having a crucifix or a school with a Scientology ethos having a picture of L.Ron Hubbard or a school with a Buddhist ethos having a little Buddha statue up on the wall. Although I do think a Scientology or Buddhist or Hindu school should have to fund themselves for that privilege. I blame the State more than I blame the RCC for the school situation in this country. It should have been addressed long before now, but better late than never.