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

yawha

philologos wrote: »

I disagree as much with a RCC one-size-fits-all than a secular one-size-fits-all.

However, will you at least concede that the latter is preferable to the former, as in the latter, no teacher has to lie about their faith, no student can be pressurized to partake in a sacrament of a religion which their parents do not practice and no child can be taught subjective opinion as fact?

philologos

yawha wrote: »

However, will you at least concede that the latter is preferable to the former, as in the latter, no teacher has to lie about their faith, no student can be pressurized to partake in a sacrament of a religion which their parents do not practice and no child can be taught subjective opinion as fact?

For certain people yes, for others no. Just as the secular system is preferable for certain people and not for others. That's precisely why I'm arguing for a pluralist education system. I'm glad that the Government is currently thinking this way.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

And who pays for that BS? Not me I hope! What you've just described is Sunday school. Why do you persist on complicating things?

I don't insist on complicating anything. I'm arguing for a good education system that will respect the wishes of parents in as far as it is practicable. Reasonable compromise is a much better solution than all secular or all a certain faith.

Taxpayers pay for schools. That money is distributed to each school. I don't see why my taxes should fund exclusively secular schools to be honest with you. The compromise is that the Government ensures that there are both faith and secular schools which is perfect really as it allows parents to decide what they think is best for their child.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

For certain people yes, for others no. Just as the secular system is preferable for certain people and not for others. That's precisely why I'm arguing for a pluralist education system. I'm glad that the Government is currently thinking this way.

Again secular is neutral. No one loses out. What is so hard to grasp dude?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Again secular is neutral. No one loses out. What is so hard to grasp dude?

Some parents think faith schools are better for their children. I think they should be able to make that call rather than you or other people who have no legitimate concern in that matter.

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others,

Why is 'self sacrifice for others' that's a good thing to teach children?

the idea that love is about giving rather than taking,

Is it really?

the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan,

What a horrible deterministic thing to tell anyone.

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,

But not enough value to 'self sacrifice' and put your own needs ahead of others. How contradictory.

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.

An omnipresent dictator watching your every move? Again, a horrible abusive notion to fill impressionable minds with.

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.

A sense of morality does not need fantasy tales to be engendered.

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.

So tell children they are responsible for the torture and murder of some guy 2000 years ago? That they are born bad? Again, what a horribly abusive thing to do to children.

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.

Bow child and be thankful. Do not question because just as God has given you all these gifts and watched his son murdered because you are bad so then he can take them away. You are in no way in control of your own life.

How throughly disgusting. Why would any rational person want to fill a child's head with such abusive notions?

This is the twisted logic of theists and it does not belong in a place of learning where young vulnerable minds are corralled.

yawha

Yeah, it's strange What is so important about religious instruction being within school hours?

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

For certain people yes, for others no. Just as the secular system is preferable for certain people and not for others. That's precisely why I'm arguing for a pluralist education system. I'm glad that the Government is currently thinking this way.



I don't insist on complicating anything. I'm arguing for a good education system that will respect the wishes of parents in as far as it is practicable. Reasonable compromise is a much better solution than all secular or all a certain faith.

Taxpayers pay for schools. That money is distributed to each school. I don't see why my taxes should fund exclusively secular schools to be honest with you. The compromise is that the Government ensures that there are both faith and secular schools which is perfect really as it allows parents to decide what they think is best for their child.

I honestly don't see what's un-pluralist with a system of secular schools, and churches and faiths groups providing their spin on things one afternoon a week, to which the parents can sign their kids up or not, as they choose?

Demanding to receive faith-only education is a little like demanding that nobody drinks alcohol on a day your own religion forbids you to drink any...
Don't drink it, but leave others alone with it.
Same goes with schools. Instruct your kids any which way you want, but don't demand society do it for you.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Some parents think faith schools are better for their children. I think they should be able to make that call rather than you or other people who have no legitimate concern in that matter.

Then let them pay for that extra education on Sunday. Easy singles cheese.

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

Some parents think faith schools are better for their children. I think they should be able to make that call rather than you or other people who have no legitimate concern in that matter.

Some parents think it's best for their children to remain analphabetic.

Surely that's their call to make?

Chuck Stone

yawha wrote: »

Yeah, it's strange What is so important about religious instruction being within school hours?

Traditionally the church likes to get it's hands on children (no pun intended) when they are young and vulnerable.

That's when the mind abuse has it's greatest affect.

Heck you can get a child to feel guilt and shame for the rest of his/her life if you catch 'em young.

Just look at the ream of non sensical mind abuse some people advocate disturbing the minds of children with as a matter of policy.

philologos

Shenshen wrote: »

Demanding to receive faith-only education is a little like demanding that nobody drinks alcohol on a day your own religion forbids you to drink any...
Don't drink it, but leave others alone with it.

Nobody is demanding for a "faith-only" education, but rather that there would be choice in the ethos of schools. The curriculum is the exact same. What is different is the values and principles that that school encourages. I think that it is valid to allow parents this decision in respect to their own kids.

Shenshen wrote: »

Same goes with schools. Instruct your kids any which way you want, but don't demand society do it for you.

By the by, it is interesting that I could criticise your opinion concerning secular schools in exactly the same way

Chuck Stone: If it is really mind abuse why aren't you rallying for the State to take kids away from their parents if they happen to believe in God? :pac:

robindch

yawha wrote: »

What is so important about religious instruction being within school hours?

It's important because parents won't do it reliably enough, so the church must step in so that it can guarantee a sufficient level of childhood indoctrination so that there will be enough people left in the next generation to populate the church.

The tactic has evolved over time for no other reason than it works (like everything else in evolution).

robindch

philologos wrote: »

there would be choice in the ethos of schools.

You know as well as everybody else that this isn't going to happen.

You are choosing this point of view because it makes you appear to be quite reasonable, while actually protecting the requirements of your religion and others, in having unregulated and unrestricted access to the trusting, innocent minds of guileless children.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

By the by, it is interesting that I could criticise your opinion concerning secular schools in exactly the same way

No you really can't, you fail to understand that secular means neutral, at least in this context or Philologos definition of secular.

mikhail

Denerick wrote: »

I don't see the problem at all. It would be insane not to have religion classes in a school. Without an adequate understanding of mainstream religions and spirituality, ones understanding of art, philosophy, and pretty much every advance of human beings since the beginning of time would be impaired. Atheists should put an end to this quixotic attempt to wipe religion out of human affairs - religiosity is, for better or worse, part of our past and clearly a part of our present also.

Pretty much every advance? Off the top of my head, some of the biggies:

Making stone tools
Creating and controlling fire
Metalworking
Farming
Writing
Gunpowder
The industrial revolution
The germ theory of disease
Large scale generation and distribution of electricity
Mandatory public education
Flight
Radio
The production line
Atomic power
Space flight
Computers

Why does it seem as though some people are a little over-eager to attribute everything to religion? Even though that's transparently insane?

I personally like the theory that all of the above can be attributed to men attempting to impress women. Therefore, I would argue that without an adequate understanding of human sexuality, one's understanding of pretty much every advance of human beings would be impaired. So why is sex education an optional topic, handled with squeamishness by the school system?

Anyone?

Religion, yes. I'll give them that one.

Shenshen

philologos wrote: »

Nobody is demanding for a "faith-only" education, but rather that there would be choice in the ethos of schools. The curriculum is the exact same. What is different is the values and principles that that school encourages. I think that it is valid to allow parents this decision in respect to their own kids.

Again, how much choice will people in rural Ireland have, do you think?
At the end of the day, they would have far, far more choice if the schools were neutral and they could provide whatever religious instructions they want outside of it.

By the by, it is interesting that I could criticise your opinion concerning secular schools in exactly the same way

You could criticise my opinion that values should be taught by parents? Let's hear it, that should be interesting.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No you really can't, you fail to understand that secular means neutral, at least in this context or Philologos definition of secular.

CerebralCortex: I'm arguing for a choice so that parents can bring their kids to faith schools. I understand what secular schools are. I think they should exist alongside faith schools. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Turtwig

mikhail wrote: »

I personally like the theory that all of the above can be attributed to men attempting to impress women.

Going off topic here and certainly not an expert in the field but I do believe one of the more accepted theories is that it was females who were more inclined to experiment with the tools and become adept with them because the males would be preoccupied with establishing their positions in the group and the female would often have to scavenge some food for herself to survive and she would teach it to her offspring while they were growing up. There are indications in our cousins alive today (can't remember which apes) that this could very well have been the case. There are still plenty schools of thought. Still it's some food for thought though.:)

AudreyHepburn

I am all for secular schools so long as faith schools are allowed to continue alongside them. Parents and children should be given the choice, not have it forced on them.

I honestly fail to see how deny parents of faith the right and chance to educate their children in their faith could possibly be seen as neutral.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

CerebralCortex: I'm arguing for a choice so that parents can bring their kids to faith schools. I understand what secular schools are. I think they should exist alongside faith schools. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I know your position. But you're wrong if you think you idea is necessary.

CerebralCortex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am all for secular schools so long as faith schools are allowed to continue alongside them. Parents and children should be given the choice, not have it forced on them.

I honestly fail to see how deny parents of faith the right and chance to educate their children in their faith could possibly be seen as neutral.

Faithful parents pay out too thank you very much.

Turtwig

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am all for secular schools so long as faith schools are allowed to continue alongside them. Parents and children should be given the choice, not have it forced on them.

I honestly fail to see how deny parents of faith the right and chance to educate their children in their faith could possibly be seen as neutral.

Ok, Audrey, explain how a secular school is denying the rights of parents to educate their children in their faith?

AudreyHepburn

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Faithful parents pay out too thank you very much.

I don't understand your point here?

Delirium

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am all for secular schools so long as faith schools are allowed to continue alongside them. Parents and children should be given the choice, not have it forced on them.

I honestly fail to see how deny parents of faith the right and chance to educate their children in their faith could possibly be seen as neutral.

but you're not denying the parents the right for their to receive religious instruction. Just that the state shouldn't be doing it for the parents.

Let the parents get involved in the kids religious upbringing.

yawha

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am all for secular schools so long as faith schools are allowed to continue alongside them. Parents and children should be given the choice, not have it forced on them.

I honestly fail to see how deny parents of faith the right and chance to educate their children in their faith could possibly be seen as neutral.

Why can't educating their children in their faith be done on Sunday?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I know your position. But you're wrong if you think you idea is necessary.

I believe it is best. That's what I'm saying. We should be arguing what is the best way of dealing with education in Ireland and I firmly believe a pluralist education system is best for Ireland.

AudreyHepburn

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, Audrey, explain how a secular school is denying the rights of parents to educate their children in their faith?

Please don't question me like I am in school.

A secular doesn't focus on one particular ethos, which some parents might prefer.

I am, as I said, all for secular schools as long as faith schools remain for those who wish to use them.

AudreyHepburn

koth wrote: »

but you're not denying the parents the right for their to receive religious instruction. Just that the state shouldn't be doing it for the parents.

Let the parents get involved in the kids religious upbringing.

So the state should cater only for the non-religious?

That's fair :rolleyes:

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

CerebralCortex: I'm arguing for a choice so that parents can bring their kids to faith schools. I understand what secular schools are. I think they should exist alongside faith schools. What is so difficult to understand about that?

But so far your entire argument can be summed up as follows:
"Parents should be allowed to bring their kids up in faith schools because parents should be allowed to bring their in faith schools."

Still waiting on the 'why'.

AudreyHepburn

yawha wrote: »

Why can't educating their children in their faith be done on Sunday?

What difference does it make? If the religious teaching is done only in religious schools it doesn't affect anyone else so what matter when it is done?