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

Delirium

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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

That's fair :rolleyes:

read up on the definition of secularism before you rolleyes.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

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'.

I've answered the why quite a few pages ago. Parents should have choice in respect to how their children are educated. I think this isn't only in respect to faith or no faith. In fact on the Gaelscoil issue also I think it is entirely valid that parents should be able to choose between that and an English speaking school.

The question is why shouldn't they? The reasons in that direction are generally more sparse.

AudreyHepburn

koth wrote: »

read up on the definition of secularism before you rolleyes.

I know what secularism is and have no problem with it.

I do have a problem with people trying to deny those with faith the right to educate their children in schools with said faith, if they wish to do so.

Delirium

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know what secularism is and have no problem with it.

I do have a problem with people trying to deny those with faith the right to educate their children in schools with said faith, if they wish to do so.

why can't parents take responsibility for their childs religious instruction? Would you be happy sending your child to a muslim school when your child isn't muslim?

philologos

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I do have a problem with people trying to deny those with faith the right to educate their children in schools with said faith, if they wish to do so.

The second I lose respect for some atheists objection to there being no secular schools is when they try to argue that not only should there be a secular school for their own children to go to but there should be no faith schools at all.

That's where the line is firmly drawn for me. That isn't even on the basis of whether or not I would like to send any hypothetical children I may or may not have to a faith school. That's primarily on the basis of ensuring choice for all parents.

yawha

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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?

There's a problem right now. 92% of primary schools have a Catholic ethos. This does not reflect the number of practicing Catholic parents. Many parents are currently forced to send their children to schools with ethoses they do not agree with as there are no alternatives in their area.

Such a pluralist system is not realisable, particularly in any sort of reasonable timeframe, and there will always always always be many cases of parents with minority beliefs compared to the majority in the area and will have to send their children to a school with an ethos which they do not agree with.

You're correct, it doesn't make any difference whether a child receives religious teaching on a Sunday or during school hours, so why not just have it on a Sunday?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

The second I lose respect for some atheists objection to there being no secular schools is when they try to argue that not only should there be a secular school for their own children to go to but there should be no faith schools at all.

That's where the line is firmly drawn for me. That isn't even on the basis of whether or not I would like to send any hypothetical children I may or may not have to a faith school. That's primarily on the basis of ensuring choice for all parents.

Unless you can guarantee every child goes to the desired school, be it faith or secular, you're just making a complicated mess.

AudreyHepburn

koth wrote: »

why can't parents take responsibility for their childs religious instruction? Would you be happy sending your child to a muslim school when your child isn't muslim?

It wouldn't bother me for them to see and learn about another culture and
belief system, no.

Why should only the non-religious be catered for by the state?

Those of us with faith are citizens too.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

The second I lose respect for some atheists objection to there being no secular schools is when they try to argue that not only should there be a secular school for their own children to go to but there should be no faith schools at all.

False dichotomy. We're advocating a neutral system for everyone, everyone no one left out.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I know what secularism is and have no problem with it.

I do have a problem with people trying to deny those with faith the right to educate their children in schools with said faith, if they wish to do so.

Nobody's denying faith education to anyone.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Unless you can guarantee every child goes to the desired school, be it faith or secular, you're just making a complicated mess.

As I've already said. It works already in a number of countries.

Despite all objections raised on this thread. Ofsted reports show that second level faith schools score higher than secular schools on social cohesion and equality in Britain. Is that just fiction or is that because they are good schools?

AudreyHepburn

CerebralCortex wrote: »

False dichotomy. We're advocating a neutral system for everyone, everyone no one left out.



Nobody's denying faith education to anyone.

If you shut down faith schools, that's exactly what you are doing.

You deny the child and the parents the right to attend a school of their particular ethos.

AudreyHepburn

yawha wrote: »

There's a problem right now. 92% of primary schools have a Catholic ethos. This does not reflect the number of practicing Catholic parents. Many parents are currently forced to send their children to schools with ethoses they do not agree with as there are no alternatives in their area.

Such a pluralist system is not realisable, particularly in any sort of reasonable timeframe, and there will always always always be many cases of parents with minority beliefs compared to the majority in the area and will have to send their children to a school with an ethos which they do not agree with.

You're correct, it doesn't make any difference whether a child receives religious teaching on a Sunday or during school hours, so why not just have it on a Sunday?

I would have no issue with it being on Sunday, but only through my own choice to educate my children so.

I would object to being forced to educate them Sunday because the faith schools have been shut down to cater for the athiest fraternity, leaving me with no choice.

CerebralCortex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If you shut down faith schools, that's exactly what you are doing.

You deny the child and the parents the right to attend a school of their particular ethos.

So what, they'll be educated in what they need not what they desire. The parents and the church can take care of the rest. Again simple!

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

As I've already said. It works already in a number of countries.

List 5 countries!

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It wouldn't bother me for them to see and learn about another culture and
belief system, no.

So you wouldn't mind if your child was sent to a Muslim school and taught that Islam is the truth?

Why should only the non-religious be catered for by the state?

Those of us with faith are citizens too.

And the famous persecution complex rears its ugly head.

Providing a completely secular school system is not tantamount to discriminating against those with religious beliefs. A completely secular school system is the only feasible way of providing a fair school system; this utopian ideal of providing schools with an ethos to fit all is just that, idealistic.

AudreyHepburn

philologos wrote: »

The second I lose respect for some atheists objection to there being no secular schools is when they try to argue that not only should there be a secular school for their own children to go to but there should be no faith schools at all.

That's where the line is firmly drawn for me. That isn't even on the basis of whether or not I would like to send any hypothetical children I may or may not have to a faith school. That's primarily on the basis of ensuring choice for all parents.

Exactly. The right to choose is the key issue here and I have no time for anyone trying to pretend that secular-only education is all-inclusive.

Again no problem with it as long the choice to educate your child in a faith school is there also.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

False dichotomy. We're advocating a neutral system for everyone, everyone no one left out.

The choice for parents to choose a school based on ethos is taken away. I think the education system is better when it allows for this diversity rather than worse and the statistics agree.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

The choice for parents to choose a school based on ethos is taken away. I think the education system is better when it allows for this diversity rather than worse and the statistics agree.

Your position would be a lot more convincing if you replied to the points that are being made, rather than defending a position that nobody disagrees with, but which will never happen for reasons that are really quite obvious.

AudreyHepburn

gvn wrote: »

So you wouldn't mind if your child was sent to a Muslim school and taught that Islam is the truth?



And the famous persecution complex rears its ugly head.

Providing a completely secular school system is not tantamount to discriminating against those with religious beliefs. A completely secular school system is the only feasible way of providing a fair school system; this utopian ideal of providing schools with an ethos to fit all is just that, idealistic.

I'm not feeling remotely persecuted thanks.

Look if you take away the faith schools you are, whether you like it or not, denying the freedom of choice to parents and children who would like to be educated in a particular ethos.

Me personally, a secular school for my children wouldn't bother me, but others would no doubt prefer their child to go to , say, a Catholic school and they should be allowed that choice.

yawha

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It wouldn't bother me for them to see and learn about another culture and
belief system, no.

Why should only the non-religious be catered for by the state?

Those of us with faith are citizens too.

Secular = NEUTRAL.

Not non-religious, or Atheist, or Agnostic, or Humanist or Pastafarian, NEUTRAL.

A secular school doesn't tell children that God doesn't exist, it simply doesn't teach any religion.

If all schools were secular, all children would go to school together every day and learn about Maths, English, Irish etc. and then on the weekends, those with parents wishing to bring them up in their faith would bring them to Church/Sunday School/Satanist Rituals/whatever and educate them about what they believe in.

No minorities having to send their children to schools which teach things they don't agree with, no children feeling left out. Practical, win-win situation for everybody.

Hell, I'd even support the government funding religious organisations to aid them in providing religious education on weekends for children with parents of faith (with similar funding going towards weekend activities/sports for non-religious children).

AudreyHepburn

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So what, they'll be educated in what they need not what they desire. The parents and the church can take care of the rest. Again simple!

So it's ok to deny people the choice in how they are educated?

The mind boggles.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

but others would no doubt prefer their child to go to , say, a Catholic school and they should be allowed that choice.

And what about schools for children who support Sinn Fein? Or who don't like broccoli?

Should there be separate schools for them?

Or do you simply keep politics and food dislikes out of schools?

Turtwig

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Look if you take away the faith schools you are, whether you like it or not, denying the freedom of choice to parents and children who would like to be educated in a particular ethos.

Ok first off. Nobody is denying you the right to a faith school. What we object to is the idea of state funded ones. By all means have as many private faith schools as possible. I would very much hope though that you agree the state should not be expected to sponsor such schools.

yawha

philologos wrote: »

The choice for parents to choose a school based on ethos is taken away. I think the education system is better when it allows for this diversity rather than worse and the statistics agree.

What % of parents choose a school based on ethos?
What % choose the local school?
What % have no choice but to choose the local school?

Again, pragmatics, how is this realisable?

AudreyHepburn

yawha wrote: »

Secular = NEUTRAL.

Not non-religious, or Atheist, or Agnostic, or Humanist or Pastafarian, NEUTRAL.

A secular school doesn't tell children that God doesn't exist, it simply doesn't teach any religion.

If all schools were secular, all children would go to school together every day and learn about Maths, English, Irish etc. and then on the weekends, those with parents wishing to bring them up in their faith would bring them to Church/Sunday School/Satanist Rituals/whatever and educate them about what they believe in.

No minorities having to send their children to schools which teach things they don't agree with, no children feeling left out. Practical, win-win situation for everybody.

Hell, I'd even support the government funding religious organisations to aid them in providing religious education on weekends for children with parents of faith (with similar funding going towards weekend activities/sports for non-religious children).

Again I KNOW what secularism is and I SUPPORT it.

I only advocate that people be given the right to choose what educational path they and their children follow.

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

And what about schools for children who support Sinn Fein? Or who don't like broccoli?

Should there be separate schools for them?

Or do you simply keep politics and food dislikes out of schools?

Completely incomparable imo.

Turtwig

Oh and can somebody (on the other side obviously) please answer these:

"What can a secular school provide that a faith school can't?"
"What can a faith school provide that a secular school can't?"

BluntGuy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You deny the child and the parents the right to attend a school of their particular ethos.

Every single parent in the country has their own particular "ethos" or philosophy and it simply impossible to provide schooling tailored specifically to every single possible belief or set of beliefs. Nor is that the job of the state. The state's job is to ensure all children get a good education, not to reinforce certain arbitrary beliefs of their parents.

AudreyHepburn

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok first off. Nobody is denying you the right to a faith school. What we object to is the idea of state funded ones. By all means have as many private faith schools as possible. I would very much hope though that you agree the state should not be expected to sponsor such schools.

Yes you are if you remove the Faith schools, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

As I said I personally wouldn't mind sending my children to a secular schools but others would prefer not to have to and they should have the right to choose.

I have said elsewhere that I'd have no issue with each faith funding its wn schools if it came to, but I just feel that some people here just want them gone altogether and that's what I object to.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not feeling remotely persecuted thanks.

Look if you take away the faith schools you are, whether you like it or not, denying the freedom of choice to parents and children who would like to be educated in a particular ethos.

Me personally, a secular school for my children wouldn't bother me, but others would no doubt prefer their child to go to , say, a Catholic school and they should be allowed that choice.

One of my objections to this seemingly liberal "let the parents choose" attitude that prevails is at its very core: I don't believe the State should aid a parent in their conditioning of a young, guillible child; the State should play no part in helping a parent raise their child, through no choice of the child's own, into one particular faith. I haven't seen one reasonable argument as to why the State should help with that particular decision of the child's parents; if a state is secular then it should be secular in all respects. A state acting secular sometimes, under some conditions, isn't a secular state.

The raising of a child into a particular faith is the job of that child's parents, not of the State.