NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

the culture of deference

Prof John Coolahan said that “it would appear the State is prohibited” from allowing non-religious schools.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0624/1224299524995.html

IT IS not possible under current legislation for a school in the Republic to be religion-free, educationalists were told yesterday.




Prof Coolahan is chairman of the advisory group which this week has been questioning in open session stakeholders in the primary schools sector on submissions they have made on diversity of patronage.


since 1926 the rule in this State was that religious instruction had been “asserted as part of the school day”.

It was stipulated that religion and the spiritual “should inform and vivify the whole world of the school”.

“in our experience very, very few people in Ireland want their children educated in an environment without a belief system.

GLaDOS

Teaching religion as a subject isn't a problem, once it's done in a secular way.

Shenshen

I agree that children should be taught about religions, of course. That's vital information.

I would draw the line when schools try and teach children religion, though.

the culture of deference

the culture of deference wrote: »

“in our experience very, very few people in Ireland want their children educated in an environment without a belief system.

My belief system is for an excellent education without religious indoctrination... how about that?

sensibleken

So just change the rules. thats why we have that dáil thing

Tordelback

My wife and I are atheists of long standing, and our unbaptised eldest goes to an Educate Together, which despite being multi-denominational and free of religious patronage has to include a religion class slot same as every other school. However, this time is used to explore the full range of beliefs without asserting any one as 'true', in my 5-year old's case starting with Humanism and Buddhism - which has already lead to fascinating conversations about karma and (indirectly) whether Hercules and Jesus are brothers, and most importantly, the concept of choice about what you believe. I have to conclude that this is a good thing, better in many ways than avoiding the subject of religion altogether.

Looking at the school as a whole, the emphasis is on the good bits of religion, namely cultural traditions and annual celebrations, with food, costume, music and dance. Through their hannukah celebrations last December I've learnt more about Jewish traditions than I ever did growing up, despite having several Jewish friends. I've no problem with this - human culture is full of good things tied up with religious practice (art, architecture, music, literature etc. - yes I know, "what if Michelangelo had been able to paint/sculpt what he wanted to?", but he wasn't - doesn't make the Pieta any less mind-blowing), once you can disentangle the fantasy and dogmatism. It's a shame to throw the baby out with the holy water.

Until recently I would have campaigned for a completely secular religious-teaching-has-no-place approach, and insisted that the time be used to better develop logical thinking or technical skills - now I feel this kind of genuine multi-denominational approach is the way to go.

CiaranMT

Teach kids about all the religions.

Best way to show them up as being unnecessary.

mewso

The sooner it's on the History curriculum the better.

Tim Robbins

I'd be in two minds about all these. Usually when this subject comes up I adopt the liberal attitude - teach about religion and let them make up their own mind.

I am beginning to think there's a bigger question here. We're in the middle of an economic and technological revolution. Our economy is in bits and the technology is making incredible breakthroughs that is reshaping our world.

Long term we have two choices. Either we race to the bottom and we go back to low cost and try to compete with China - that's not possible. The other possibility is we go for the smart economy and do it properly.

What are the smartest technologies at the moment - things like MapReduce from google. Even though it's not that complicated to understand how many people who get straight A's in their living could explain that? This shows how far our out - dated education is from the smart economy.

I would favour a complete overhaul of our educational system. Not just religion. I'd ditch half of it (not just religion) and I'd introduce subjects and modules that reflect the world we live in so that people with a intellectual aptitude are best served to fulfill their intellectual potential.

I'd also reform teaching and get rid of teachers who make no effort to keep their skills and knowledge up to date. These people should not be anywhere near education and our system is full of them.

Nodin

It seems the government/civil service think otherwise

The Department of Education has told the Forum on Pluralism and Patronage that it does not think the law prevents the setting up of non-denominational or completely secular schools here.

Secretary General Brigid McManus told the forum that, to the best of her knowledge, she did not think existing regulations would be an impediment.
The Department told the forum that it had considered establishing the new Community National Schools as completely non-denominational schools
with no religious instruction, but in the end decided against it.

Ms McManus said this had never been an issue because no patron had come forward with a proposal for such a school.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0624/education.html

philologos

Of course there should be schools with no ethos where there is sufficient demand. Although there are others who say that there should be no faith schools at all. In my opinion one is simply the opposite of the other and equally inhibit good compromise. The reasonable middle ground needs to be explored.

CiaranMT

philologos wrote: »

Of course there should be schools with no ethos where there is sufficient demand. Although there are others who say that there should be no faith schools at all. In my opinion one is simply the opposite of the other and equally inhibit good compromise. The reasonable middle ground needs to be explored.

But this would seem to be the reasonable middle ground to me. Remove direct influence of one religion in school, and replace it with a comprehensive education in the varying religions of the world. A little idealistic, though.

philologos

CiaranMT wrote: »

But this would seem to be the reasonable middle ground to me. Remove direct influence of one religion in school, and replace it with a comprehensive education in the varying religions of the world. A little idealistic, though.

Let's think about it:

A = All schools should be faith schools.
NOT A = No schools should be faith schools.

The middle between these propositions seems to be that we should provide both faith and secular schools in so far as parents would desire to send their children to faith schools or secular schools. We are a society where believers and non-believers live together with wishes and aspirations for their children. As such I feel that we should provide a balanced system.

The imposition of A or NOT A seems like a poor solution for a society with believers and non-believers. Why not give the liberty to the parents to make this decision? What is so awful with parents wanting to provide a ethical and spiritual framework for their child? One which they can think about and decide to accept or reject freely.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Of course there should be schools with no ethos where there is sufficient demand.

Well, I think that schools for white children should be available to brown and black children, but only if the brown and black children demand it.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Well, I think that schools for white children should be available to brown and black children, but only if the brown and black children demand it.

I actually don't support restrictions on admissions so that argument is invalid. I do support faith schools, but I don't think faith schools should close their doors to people because they aren't baptised in denomination X. First come first served should be the only policy.

If parents want to bring their children to a school which operates on certain values and principles. I don't see anything wrong with allowing for that diversity.

CiaranMT

philologos wrote: »

Let's think about it:

A = All schools should be faith schools.
NOT A = No schools should be faith schools.

The middle between these propositions seems to be that we should provide both faith and secular schools in so far as parents would desire to send their children to faith schools or secular schools. We are a society where believers and non-believers live together with wishes and aspirations for their children. As such I feel that we should provide a balanced system.

The imposition of A or NOT A seems like a poor solution for a society with believers and non-believers. Why not give the liberty to the parents to make this decision? What is so awful with parents wanting to provide a ethical and spiritual framework for their child? One which they can think about and decide to accept or reject freely.

But why does faith have to be part of a school set-up, for you?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

First come first served should be the only policy.

Great, we agree on that -- this doesn't happen often

And what about schools which make it impossible to avoid religion, even if the parents explicitly demand is (as is their right, under the constitution?)

philologos

CiaranMT wrote: »

But why does faith have to be part of a school set-up, for you?

Parents want their children to experience a set of values that they have found hugely important in their lives so that they might make an informed decision as to whether to adopt those values at a later date. Clearly parents see that this has a huge benefit to their children. Ultimately I think its a fair decision for parents to bring their children to a school inspired by Christian, Islamic, Jewish etc values where it is practicable.

It seems to be only those who think that faith is an abuse of the mind who would attempt to deny this freedom.

As far as I see it one can't demand for choice of schools and then attempt to deny this choice to others. That's why I see no difference between proposition A and NOT A. I find them both woefully inadequate and I would consider anyone expousing NOT A to be the exact same as those expousing A. I'm overall supportive of secular schooling for those who desire it. I lose all support the second when people start to suggest that there should be no faith schools.

In retrospect even though I didn't appreciate it for 13 years of my education, I am thankful that I went to a faith school. I got the chance to ask all the questions I wanted to ask when I was ready to ask them and because I genuinely wanted to ask them based on my own research. The last year of my secondary school education was hugely formational in who I am today.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Great, we agree on that -- this doesn't happen often

And what about schools which make it impossible to avoid religion, even if the parents explicitly demand is (as is their right, under the constitution?)

There should be alternatives.

Assuming that there are secular alternatives it is a choice to go to a faith school. By going to a faith school you understand that there will be a certain ethos. If there are alternatives and you want your child to have a faith-free formation it seems absurd to bring them to a faith school.

If there aren't alternatives I believe that parents should have the right to withdraw their child from faith formation classes.

CiaranMT

philologos wrote: »

Parents want their children to experience a set of values that they have found hugely important in their lives so that they might make an informed decision as to whether to adopt those values at a later date. Clearly parents see that this has a huge benefit to their children. Ultimately I think its a fair decision for parents to bring their children to a school inspired by Christian, Islamic, Jewish etc values where it is practicable.

It seems to be only those who think that faith is an abuse of the mind who would attempt to deny this freedom.

As far as I see it one can't demand for choice of schools and then attempt to deny this choice to others. That's why I see no difference between proposition A and NOT A. I find them both woefully inadequate and I would consider anyone expousing NOT A to be the exact same as those expousing A. I'm overall supportive of secular schooling for those who desire it. I lose all support the second when people start to suggest that there should be no faith schools.

In retrospect even though I didn't appreciate it for 13 years of my education, I am thankful that I went to a faith school. I got the chance to ask all the questions I wanted to ask when I was ready to ask them and because I genuinely wanted to ask them based on my own research. The last year of my secondary school education was hugely formational in who I am today.

What values would a faith school provide over a non-faith school, in your eyes?

Not that I'm saying there shouldn't be faith schools - I went to a fine Catholic school in Limerick, and a primary school in Clare before that, and both provided me with an excellent education and a sound base.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

If there are alternatives and you want your child to have a faith-free formation it seems absurd to bring them to a faith school.

Around 99% of the schools in the country are controlled by religious organizations. There is no money to build other schools, so there is no alternative. And it's debatable whether or not religious organizations have any genuine moral claim to control the schools they do claim to control.

philologos wrote: »

If there aren't alternatives I believe that parents should have the right to withdraw their child from faith formation classes.

Yes, many schools offer the possibility to avoid having one's kid openly indoctrinated. Very few schools offer the possibility of avoiding religion altogether.

You wouldn't provide the Ku Klux Klan with access to kids for the purposes of "faith formation" (what a hideously Orwellian phrase). Why provide discredited religious organizations the same free access to innocent and trusting children?

philologos

CiaranMT wrote: »

What values would a faith school provide over a non-faith school, in your eyes?

It depends on the faith school. Also given that I haven't attended a secular school I have nothing to really compare it to. So I guess it depends on the school.

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

These aren't quite the same anywhere else. Jesus Christ is a good starting point when it comes to these things from how I've come to understand it. That's only if a school actually takes a Christian ethos seriously. If it doesn't there is little to no point in having one.

CiaranMT wrote: »

Not that I'm saying there shouldn't be faith schools - I went to a fine Catholic school in Limerick, and a primary school in Clare before that, and both provided me with an excellent education and a sound base.

But I would be surprised if you would say that the ethos made any positive difference.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Around 99% of the schools in the country are controlled by religious organizations. There is no money to build other schools, so there is no alternative. And it's debatable whether or not religious organizations have any genuine moral claim to control the schools they do claim to control.Yes, many schools offer the possibility to avoid having one's kid openly indoctrinated. Very few schools offer the possibility of avoiding religion altogether.

At present. Hence why I support what Ruairí Quinn is doing. You seem to have ignored what I've said about alternatives.

robindch wrote: »

You wouldn't provide the Ku Klux Klan with access to kids for the purposes of "faith formation" (what a hideously Orwellian phrase). Why provide discredited religious organizations the same free access to innocent and trusting children?

You'd need to give your reasoning as to why faith schools would be as insidious as this. I certainly won't be bending over backwards to defend it until you do. The same for "discredited". It needs reasoning too.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

You seem to have ignored what I've said about alternatives.

No, I didn't -- I explicitly mentioned it in the previous post.

To wit, it would be simply magnificent if the country was filled with schools which are free from religious interference and which believe that the education of children was their primary goal. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Ireland, since -- as I said -- the country lacks the money to build new schools (regardless of the dubious legitimacy of the claim of the religious organizations to control the schools in the first place.)

philologos wrote: »

You'd need to give your reasoning as to why faith schools would be as insidious as this.

I wouldn't send my kid to a Sinn Fein, Labour, Fine Gail, Fianna Fail or Atheist Ireland school. Why on earth would I want to send her to a place whose very essence is defined by the political organization which controls it? What's wrong with the idea of neutral education, other than that the religious will find that their assembly line of impressionable, trusting, innocent children no longer runs?

philologos wrote: »

The same for "discredited". It needs reasoning too.

Check out the Vatican's record on child care over the last century or so. It's been in the news recently.

Paparazzo

CiaranMT wrote: »

What values would a faith school provide over a non-faith school, in your eyes?

Not that I'm saying there shouldn't be faith schools - I went to a fine Catholic school in Limerick, and a primary school in Clare before that, and both provided me with an excellent education and a sound base.

From my secondary school experience in a CBS secondary school, the only "values" it thought were not to question religion or disagree with it. It was the only class where if you questioned anything, disagreed with the teacher or had the wrong opinion that you would actually get hit!

I think I can speak for most students in catholic schools, religion is a doss class. If you're anyway serious about it, go to a sunday school.

robindch

Paparazzo wrote: »

the only "values" it thought were not to question religion

That was about the height of it for me too.

As I subsequently found out, this is not a very useful value.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

To wit, it would be simply magnificent if the country was filled with schools which are free from religious interference and which believe that the education of children was their primary goal. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Ireland, since -- as I said -- the country lacks the money to build new schools (regardless of the dubious legitimacy of the claim of the religious organizations to control the schools in the first place.)

I hope Quinn does provide secular alternatives through the current process in respect of the RCC. Now that that is clear lets chew on some of the other stuff.

robindch wrote: »

I wouldn't send my kid to a Sinn Fein, Labour, Fine Gail, Fianna Fail or Atheist Ireland school. Why on earth would I want to send her to a place whose very essence is defined by the political organization which controls it? What's wrong with the idea of neutral education, other than that the religious will find that their assembly line of impressionable, trusting, innocent children no longer runs?

I don't see any comparison with politics. Faith schools tend to provide a moral and spiritual framework for children. It doesn't generally point people towards political parties.

The impressionable trusting lark is nonsense really. Ultimately people think about what they have been taught and make decisions for themselves. If it makes sense it remains if it doesn't it is discarded or should I say if they feel they can make sense of it.

robindch wrote: »

Check out the Vatican's record on child care over the last century or so. It's been in the news recently.

Too easy as far as I'm concerned. Yes abuse occurred in schools. By the by, abuse also occurs in settings in non-church situations such as swimming teams / sporting clubs etc.

Even if it was specifically an RCC problem and I won't be defending their handling of the matter because it was a disgrace and I think all abusers should be behind bars clergy or not there is more than 1 church in Ireland. There are also other religions.

gbee

TBH, you'd not expect a prof to take this viewpoint. I thought you had to be educated to be a prof. Oh I just thought, it could be an honourary degree.

Teaching children religion is child abuse.

I'd go so far as to abolish schooling altogether. I'm with Pink Floyd and another brick in the wall, on this issue.

CiaranMT

philologos wrote: »

It depends on the faith school. Also given that I haven't attended a secular school I have nothing to really compare it to. So I guess it depends on the school.

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

These aren't quite the same anywhere else. Jesus Christ is a good starting point when it comes to these things from how I've come to understand it. That's only if a school actually takes a Christian ethos seriously. If it doesn't there is little to no point in having one.

What you have just written can be provided by a non-faith school which places proper emphasis on those things (minus the god and jesus bit).

But I would be surprised if you would say that the ethos made any positive difference.

Indeed.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

I do support faith schools

Why, specifically?

(Warning: This may be a leading question. {It's not really, but you seem to always answer as if questions are.})

Robert ninja

Faith schools teach you what to learn.
Secular schools teach you how to learn.

The education system is already terrible as it is. Classes dedicated to colouring in jesus are a waste of time. There's church on Sunday and pretty much only ONE book for christianity... the bible. I don't think that needs any school time or resources. Secular teaching of what religion is, the history of it and the diversity of it is fine... but that goes without saying. Going through a history class without religion would be like going through it without war.

I think parents in modern days see their true frailty and weakness of religion. The Catholic Church has the worst reputation it ever could have and there's very little need for religion anymore. People are waking up... and so they don't want to see it get burried anymore. But fine, waste school time with indocrination class. As it has been said in this thread, it's just a doss class for almost every kid.

yawha

philologos wrote: »

A = All schools should be faith schools.
NOT A = No schools should be faith schools.

Wow, I think I've read before that you said you studied Computer Science? What were they teaching you guys?

If A = All schools should be faith schools, then NOT A = Not all schools should be faith schools, or "there should exist schools which are not faith schools".

Really, really basic stuff. Predicate logic 101.

philologos

yawha wrote: »

Wow, I think I've read before that you said you studied Computer Science? What were they teaching you guys?

If A = All schools should be faith schools, then NOT A = Not all schools should be faith schools, or "there should exist schools which are not faith schools".

Really, really basic stuff. Predicate logic 101.

Edit: I think I may have been getting the dual of the operation rather than the negation.

The diametric opposite of all is none, but the logical opposite of all is simply not all, a number of elements less than the total in a set. The diametric opposite of none is all, but the logical opposite of none is not none, a number of elements more than an empty set. So, some can then mean "any number of elements less than the total" or "any number of elements greater than zero". Tricky...

Easy mistake to make. Above from here.

Agreed, my bad. If one were to look at the polar opposites though, the opposite of all schools should be faith schools is no school should be a faith school.

I disagree strongly with the latter and the former. It doesn't seem conducive to compromise at all. One can easily sneer at the type of stuff in the OP, but if one is going to do the exact same thing on the opposite side then I suggest that you should look more objectively.

strobe wrote: »

Why, specifically?

(Warning: This may be a leading question. {It's not really, but you seem to always answer as if questions are.})

I think I have answered it sufficiently in that I think that parents should have the liberty to decide to bring their child to a school through which they can give their children the moral and spiritual framework that they feel is best where practicable.

The primary reason most people disagree with faith schools in here I'd presume is because they feel it is child abuse. If they really believed this they would be arguing that the State should take kids from their parents. If you felt genuinely that a child was being abused this is the moral thing to do.

getz

non religious state schools in the UK have alway had classes half a hour twice a week in the christian faith,its called religious instruction,in my day its was just christian bibical studies,safe basic new testament readings,by teachers not priests or vicars,mind you since then a lot of other faiths have arrived in the UK

Paparazzo

philologos wrote: »

Edit: I think I may have been getting the dual of the operation rather than the negation.



Easy mistake to make. Above from here.

Agreed, my bad. If one were to look at the polar opposites though, the opposite of all schools should be faith schools is no school should be a faith school.

I disagree strongly with the latter and the former. It doesn't seem conducive to compromise at all. One can easily sneer at the type of stuff in the OP, but if one is going to do the exact same thing on the opposite side then I suggest that you should look more objectively.



I think I have answered it sufficiently in that I think that parents should have the liberty to decide to bring their child to a school through which they can give their children the moral and spiritual framework that they feel is best where practicable.

The primary reason most people disagree with faith schools in here I'd presume is because they feel it is child abuse. If they really believed this they would be arguing that the State should take kids from their parents. If you felt genuinely that a child was being abused this is the moral thing to do.

Can you expand on the "moral framework"? Having gone to a religious school, the only difference seemed to be religion class and the odd confession. Both of which were considered a doss by every student.

philologos

Paparazzo wrote: »

Can you expand on the "moral framework"? Having gone to a religious school, the only difference seemed to be religion class and the odd confession. Both of which were considered a doss by every student.

These aren't quite the same anywhere else. Jesus Christ is a good starting point when it comes to these things from how I've come to understand it. That's only if a school actually takes a Christian ethos seriously. If it doesn't there is little to no point in having one.

I agree with you.

Here's the moral framework in a jist that I believe that Christianity offers:

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him

......oh, and dont forget the idea that it is just that the majority of posters in this forum, and billions around the world, should burn in hell for eternity (by god's will). You forgot that other central tenent of your faith, Jakkass.

It never ceases to amuse me how you wander around these forums pretending to be tolerant when your hold such intolerant and abhorrent views.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Faith schools tend to provide a moral and spiritual framework for children.

Schools which are controlled by unelected religious officials are able to enforce the teaching of religious stories as though they were factual. I take it that you're happy that "islamic schools" are able to instruct children that all christians are going to burn in hell, just as much as "catholic schools" are permitted to instruct the same concerning protestants. And so on? Does this strike you as a reasonable way to react to the trusting innocence of young children?

philologos wrote: »

The impressionable trusting lark is nonsense really.

I'm not quite sure that I understand you correctly -- are you really saying that young children are neither impressionable nor trusting?

pH

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

I read that, then I read this: http://www.smh.com.au/national/i-can-still-hear-the-kids-screams-20110611-1fyap.html
and laughed.

Now I know you'll do some hand waving and say something like
A) that's not my type of Christianity or
The above is just an ideal, people are weak and fallible

So you should change the above to preface it with "My kind of Christianity (but obviously not all Christianity) ..." or else add a note at the end saying that while the above is an ideal, Christians ignore it and continue to cause misery and pain to others, so it's all rather pointless. Your choice.

After all, arguing about which philosophical and moral system someone isn't following whilst torturing kids seems rather pointless.

strobe

philologos wrote: »

I think I have answered it sufficiently in that I think that parents should have the liberty to decide to bring their child to a school through which they can give their children the moral and spiritual framework that they feel is best where practicable.

I'm pretty sure I have seen you say that parents themselves should be the ones to provide their children a spiritual and moral framework 40 or 50 times?

The primary reason most people disagree with faith schools in here I'd presume is because they feel it is child abuse. If they really believed this they would be arguing that the State should take kids from their parents. If you felt genuinely that a child was being abused this is the moral thing to do.

Well I can't speak for other people and their primary reasons man. Personally I disagree with faith schools for the same reason I would have disagreed with the Hitler Youth.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

It depends on the faith school. Also given that I haven't attended a secular school I have nothing to really compare it to. So I guess it depends on the school.

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking, the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

Remove the god component from that, and all of that was covered by my parents.

I used to be on the fence about faith schools being an option as part of public schools. But then I thought how would that work where I grew up. There is 1 educate together school is a 30 mile radius. My local school is a Catholic school. One of my neighbours who was protestant had to go to a school 12 miles away due to all the schools available being RC run schools.

At this time, I'm leaning towards a school model like the educate together model. Why should parents decide to raise kids in a certain religion and then expect the state to all the heavy lifting with regards to religious instruction?

philologos

koth wrote: »

Remove the god component from that, and all of that was covered by my parents.

Without the God component a lot of those aren't possible.

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking (arguably this one in that Jesus is the exemplar of self-sacrifice), the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself. You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

Most of them are gone now. I would have to conclude that different ethical principles were involved.

koth wrote: »

I used to be on the fence about faith schools being an option as part of public schools. But then I thought how would that work where I grew up. There is 1 educate together school is a 30 mile radius. My local school is a Catholic school. One of my neighbours who was protestant had to go to a school 12 miles away due to all the schools available being RC run schools.

This isn't an argument against faith schools. It is an argument against adequate alternatives in the education system. I agree with Ruairí Quinn's current efforts but it is far from an adequate argument to get rid of faith schools.

koth wrote: »

At this time, I'm leaning towards a school model like the educate together model. Why should parents decide to raise kids in a certain religion and then expect the state to all the heavy lifting with regards to religious instruction?

And imposing this one everyone? Or just for people who desire it?

If it is the former I have no interest to be honest because I think that parents should have the liberty of choice in this are. In the latter, I think that's only right and fair for you to pursue.

So, philologos, you want a secular government that provides faith schools in addition to secular schools? Is that not a bit of a contradiction?

philologos

gvn wrote: »

So, philologos, you want a secular government that provides faith schools in addition to secular schools? Is that not a bit of a contradiction?

Pluralist education system where faith schools are free to set up providing choice. I don't see how this favours one belief system over another.

It's a State which is impartial to all forms of religious belief. It's not a secular society. I would encourage the former, not the latter. The society contains people of faith and no faith. The Government should try and facilitate these people in so far as it is practicable.

The UK is doing fine with this model. I don't see why we can't either.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Without the God component a lot of those aren't possible.

Most of them are gone now. I would have to conclude that different ethical principles were involved.

A sense of purpose is possible even without god in the equation.

being held always held accountable obviously relies on god existing. Otherwise you're just using fear to get people to do the right thing.

This isn't an argument against faith schools. It is an argument against adequate alternatives in the education system. I agree with Ruairí Quinn's current efforts but it is far from an adequate argument to get rid of faith schools.

but that won't work where I grew up. The population doesn't merit a second school, so it'll be a faith school or a secular school. So what do the parents who don't want a child receiving religious instruction do?

And imposing this one everyone? Or just for people who desire it?

Having only one faith school in a village does the same thing.

If it is the former I have no interest to be honest because I think that parents should have the liberty of choice in this are. In the latter, I think that's only right and fair for you to pursue.

Why should the parents get the state to raise the child as a Catholic when it was the parents who promised to do it?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

Pluralist education system where faith schools are free to set up providing choice. I don't see how this favours one belief system over another.

It's a State which is impartial to all forms of religious belief. It's not a secular society. I would encourage the former, not the latter.

People should be free to set up such schools, but I don't think the State should have any part in it.

Schools should be completely secular. The government should remain absolutely secular, always, in all respects and at all times.

If parents want to raise their child into a particular faith then that's their choice--however much I or others might disagree with it. The Government and the public school system should have no part in helping a child's parents with that decision, as far as I'm concerned. Any deviation from this results in a school system that is no longer secular, and thus a government which ceases to be a secular one.

The UK is doing fine with this model. I don't see why we can't either

Have you seen the Channel 4 programme where Dawkins questioned students of an Islamic school on the topic of evolution? How you could think they're doing fine is beyond me.

philologos

koth wrote: »

but that won't work where I grew up. The population doesn't merit a second school, so it'll be a faith school or a secular school. So what do the parents who don't want a child receiving religious instruction do?

What does common sense suggest? - To me it suggests if there is only 1 secular is best. If there are more than one there is room for diversity. I grew up in towns mostly so perhaps that is why your situation differs. My parents brought me to a CofI school in every place I lived.

koth wrote: »

Having only one faith school in a village does the same thing.

See above.

koth wrote: »

Why should the parents get the state to raise the child as a Catholic when it was the parents who promised to do it?

The State doesn't do this. The State simply funds schools that keep to the curriculum. It is up to individual schools as to what ethos they are.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

Schools should be completely secular. The government should remain absolutely secular, always, in all respects and at all times.

The Government can still be secular and provide a good pluralist education system. This policy doesn't involve favouring faith schools over secular schools, nor does it involve favouring one faith over another. Yet it facilitates the wishes of both parties.

gvn wrote: »

Have you seen the Channel 4 programme where Dawkins questioned students of an Islamic school on the topic of evolution? How you could think they're doing fine is beyond me.

I saw it. I think the examples were far from representative. That school failed to teach the curriculum properly and as a result funding should have been removed.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

What does common sense suggest? - To me it suggests if there is only 1 secular is best. If there are more than one there is room for diversity.

See above.

so if people live in a small village they have better odds of a secular school? why not just have it as the norm for all towns/cities/villages?

The State doesn't do this. The State simply funds schools that keep to the curriculum. It is up to individual schools as to what ethos they are.

In my village, yes it does. The only public school is a RCC school, so to my mind it does exactly as I said.

Public schools shouldn't have religious instruction in them. Educate about religions, sure, but leave faith formation to the parents and their respective religious group.

philologos

koth wrote: »

so if people live in a small village they have better odds of a secular school? why not just have it as the norm for all towns/cities/villages?

I think parents have the liberty to decide. I think it is acceptable tha t there should be a diversity of schools to choose from and I think that people can benefit from going to a faith school or that faith schools are better suited to some children.

koth wrote: »

In my village, yes it does. The only public school is a RCC school, so to my mind it does exactly as I said.

Public schools shouldn't have religious instruction in them. Educate about religions, sure, but leave faith formation to the parents and their respective religious group.

It's still mistaken. The State doesn't do this it funds education generally and that is distributed to all schools.

I disagree with you in so far as both exist together there should be reasonable compromise. Saying all schools should be secular is as bad as saying all schools should be faith schools as I see it. I draw the line where choice isn't facilitated. As long as it is I'm more than happy for secular schools to exist and become much more available.

My point is if you want more choice that's fine, but don't deny the choice of others.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

What does common sense suggest? - To me it suggests if there is only 1 secular is best.

Why do you say secular is the best if there is only room for one?