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

yawha

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Completely incomparable imo.

Why?

Schools supporting a certain political party is a very good comparison IMO.

What if Fianna Fáil supporting parents want FF schools, or Sinn Féin supporting parents want SF schools? Should schools like this exist? If not, are you not denying a parent's right to choose how their child will be educated?

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Completely incomparable imo.

So children shouldn't get labelled by the politics of their parents, but it's ok for them to be labelled by the religion of their parents?

BTW, given that quite a few of the people who "teach" religion in school are not religious themselves, it's always seemed strange that the nation's catholics aren't queuing up to hand over their children to priests for a few hour's tuition of a Sunday. You'd have thought they would be, but they're not. Strange that.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh and can somebody (on the other side obviously) please answer [...]

Best of luck with carefully chosen questions!

yawha

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second.

I was under the impression that this conversation was entirely about state schools.

Of course privately funded religious schools should be allowed exist.

Hands up any atheist on this forum who believes that privately funded religious schools should be banned. Anyone??

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

So children shouldn't get labelled by the politics of their parents, but it's ok for them to be labelled by the religion of their parents?

BTW, given that quite a few of the people who "teach" religion in school are not religious themselves, it's always seemed strange that the nation's catholics aren't queuing up to hand over their children to priests for a few hour's tuition of a Sunday.

I didn't say that Robindch.

I am only advocating the right to choose the education you want for your children, not be forced into it.

That's it, nothing more.

robindch

yawha wrote: »

Hands up any atheist on this forum who believes that privately funded religious schools should be banned. Anyone??

Not me. If the parents want to ensure the indoctrination of their kid, then that's their right. But not when (a) I'm paying for it and (b) they're prepared to stop my child receiving an education because I don't believe their religious stories.

The total inability of the religious side to understand, accept or respond to these very simple points is quite startling.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Best of luck with carefully chosen questions!

I've actually lost count of the iteration now.:(

AudreyHepburn

yawha wrote: »

Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second.

I was under the impression that this conversation was entirely about state schools.

Of course privately funded religious schools should be allowed exist.

Hands up any atheist on this forum who believes that privately funded religious schools should be banned. Anyone??

I'd hope that's what it was about and for some I am sure it is.

But equally I am sure many would just rather religious schools be done away with in all their forms.

Not saying you btw:)

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

I've actually lost count of the iteration now.

Bummer.

Still, it's instructive in a sad way perhaps, that the religious won't or more likely, can't, respond to the objections we raise -- I suspect because they actually agree with them (but are too embarrassed to appear so).

Turtwig

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'd hope that's what it was about and for some I am sure it is.

But equally I am sure many would just rather religious schools be done away with in all their forms.

Not saying you btw:)

Who?
What proportion of the population do you think holds this view?
Finally, isn't this a little like women shouldn't be allowed in the kitchen because they have access to knives and some women believe husbands should be done away it. Ergo no women in kitchens just to be safe.?

philologos

yawha wrote: »

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?

We don't know yet because the vast majorities of schools have an ethos. Personally I wouldn't expect any more than 30 - 40% to be faith schools. I do believe that choice should be there though.

Dades

What is this "faith school" that religious people don't want removed anyway?

- Some mumbled prayers in the morning?
- An hour or two a week of "Our God is the Right One" religious instruction?
- School mass once a week?
- Preparing for the sacraments during school time?

Which of these cannot be moved to 3:30pm, or the Sabbath? Why does it have be done during school hours? The inclusion of these during schooltime does not create a "school ethos" - it just disrupts the day. I had 12 years of Catholic education despite the ever-presence of ever-aging priests, there was no pervading catholic atmosphere - whatever that entails. RE was for the most part ignored, as there are 1,000 most relevant things going on in any schoolkid's life.

Wouldn't moving religious instruction to outside school hours actually give it some sorely-lacking respectability?

Unless you're talking Muslim schools, this idea of "don't take our faith schools" is nonsense.

yawha

yawha wrote: »

Hands up any atheist on this forum who believes that privately funded religious schools should be banned. Anyone??

I'd rather that religious schools didn't exist at all, to be honest. But, having said that, I respect the rights of a parent or parents to indoctrinate their children into whatever belief system they want; if they'd like to do this with the help of a privately funded school then so be it. I wouldn't wish to see such schools banned; I'd wish to see parents choosing not to send their children to such schools in the first place.

The Mad Hatter

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But equally I am sure many would just rather religious schools be done away with in all their forms.

Based on what?

AudreyHepburn

gvn wrote: »

I'd rather that religious schools didn't exist at all, to be honest. But, having said that, I respect the rights of a parent or parents to indoctrinate their children into whatever belief system they want; if they'd like to do this with the help of a privately funded school then so be it. I wouldn't wish to see such schools banned; I'd wish to see parents choosing not to send their children to such schools in the first place.

I rest my case.

It is this attitude I object to, not secularism.

philologos

Dades: It isn't about "don't take our faith schools" because as far as I can tell that isn't even on the agenda for this Government. Faith schools are recognised as a part of the education system and that's the way I think it should be kept. As for more secular schools, absolutely that should be a key priority for this Government.

Dades

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I rest my case.

It is this attitude I object to, not secularism.

Actually, no. You're objecting to secularism too.

AudreyHepburn

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Based on what?

Well on what I read re religion and education here on boards and conversations I've had in the real world.

AudreyHepburn

Dades wrote: »

Actually, no. You're objecting to secularism too.

How?

I am all for schools teaching a variety of religions/beliefs and not subscribing to just one, because the demand for such is there.

I have no issue with faiths funding their own schools if necessary.

philologos

One thing that people are missing as well is that people of faith and people of no faith are taxpayers. Ultimately both have a say in how the education funding should be used and both have their vote come election time.

AudreyHepburn

philologos wrote: »

One thing that people are missing as well is that people of faith and people of no faith are taxpayers. Ultimately both have a say in how the education funding should be used and both have their vote come election time.

This +100.

Dades

philologos wrote: »

Dades: It isn't about "don't take our faith schools" because as far as I can tell that isn't even on the agenda for this Government. Faith schools are recognised as a part of the education system and that's the way I think it should be kept.

Hello?!

philologos wrote: »

The choice for parents to choose a school based on ethos is taken away.

My point was this notion of a "faith school" is a red herring. Just because a school herds it's children into RE class doesn't make it a faith school the likes of which it would be discrimination to get rid of. That's just a soundbyte.

Nobody has yet given a reason why any of the things done during school hours cannot be done after the bell.
Because it sure as heck won't change the ethos of the school.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I rest my case.

It is this attitude I object to, not secularism.

Heh, I suspect you're reading what you'd like to read instead of actually reading what I've posted.

Here are my views, clearly and concisely:

1) I believe that the State should play no part in helping parents to indoctrinate their children. Therefore, I believe there should be no state-funded faith schools.

2) I respect the rights of parents to indoctrinate their children into any particular faith, however much I might personally disagree with such a practice. If a parent wishes to do this with the aid of a privately-funded school, then so be it: I respect their right to do so.

3) I do not wish for faith schools to be banned. I wish for parents to not want to send their children to such schools in the first place. (For many reasons: biased education, segregation, engendering children with a "them and us" attitude, etc.)

Now, tell me, which of the above do you find so objectionable?

Dades

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How?

I am all for schools teaching a variety of religions/beliefs and not subscribing to just one, because the demand for such is there.

I have no issue with faiths funding their own schools if necessary.

So would you be happy that any school promoting a single faith would be privately funded - leaving every state-funded school to promote no particular religion during the school day?

That would great.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

!My point was this notion of a "faith school" is a red herring. Just because a school herds it's children into RE class doesn't make it a faith school the likes of which it would be discrimination to get rid of. That's just a soundbyte.

I'm simply saying in so far as people have a vote there will be a discussion on this. I can only hope for reasonable compromise. I don't consider it discrimination to get rid of it. I do consider it an issue that people of faith will ultimately lobby their TD's about.

Dades wrote: »

Nobody has yet given a reason why any of the things done during school hours cannot be done after the bell.
Because it sure as heck won't change the ethos of the school.

I never said that they can't. I've argued that it is better to have the choice. The sky wouldn't fall in by any means. I think a pluralist system is better and it is something I would expect an answer from any politician on. If a politician would support getting rid of the choice I simply won't vote for them. That's a valid policy based decision in an election.

AudreyHepburn

Dades wrote: »

So would you be happy that any school promoting a single faith would be privately funded - leaving every state-funded school to promote no particular religion during the school day?

That would great.

Yes, so long as faith schools remain too. I just feel, as I said, that many here would rather they were gotten rid of.

AudreyHepburn

gvn wrote: »

Heh, I suspect you're reading what you'd like to read instead of actually reading what I've posted.

Here are my views, clearly and concisely:

1) I believe that the State should play no part in helping parents to indoctrinate their children. Therefore, I believe there should be no state-funded faith schools.

2) I respect the rights of parents to indoctrinate their children into any particular faith, however much I might personally disagree with such a practice. If a parent wishes to do this with the aid of a privately-funded school, then so be it: I respect their right to do so.

3) I do not wish for faith schools to be banned. I wish for parents to not want to send their children to such schools in the first place. (For many reasons: biased education, segregation, engendering children with a "them and us" attitude, etc.)

Now, tell me, which of the above do you find so objectionable?

Those points are fair.

In your last post you said simply that you wanted faith schools banned. I objected to that as I read it as saying you want all faith schools in all their forms banned.

Dades

philologos - clearly you can't have choice in the way you talk about as that won't work for people who only have one school nearby.

On the other hand people who want to teach their kids about faith have the choice to do it any other time of the day.

Also, you are starting to sound like a politician.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Those points are fair.

In your last post you said simply that you wanted faith schools banned. I objected to that as I read it as saying you want all faith schools in all their forms banned.

No, no I didn't. I actually said the complete opposite. I said:

gvn wrote:

I'd rather that religious schools didn't exist at all, to be honest. But, having said that, I respect the rights of a parent or parents to indoctrinate their children into whatever belief system they want; if they'd like to do this with the help of a privately funded school then so be it. I wouldn't wish to see such schools banned; I'd wish to see parents choosing not to send their children to such schools in the first place.

I explicitly said I wouldn't like to see such schools banned. (The bolded part above.)

I did say, however, that I'd wish faith schools didn't exist in the first place. Not because I'd like to see them banned, but because parents wouldn't wish to send their children to such a school.

Delirium

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.

they wouldn't be learning about muslim beliefs, they'd be instructed in muslim beliefs. big difference.

why is secular for non religious only? i thought you knew what secularism is.