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

AudreyHepburn

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Extract from the Irish Times Article
In his responses to questions from the advisory group Paul Rowe, chief executive of Educate Together, said that “in our experience very, very few people in Ireland want their children educated in an environment without a belief system.''
“Our experience is that it is an absolutely minimal demand in the Irish context.”

Conclusion
By all means provision should be made for those who want a different system, which looks like it will happen. However it would be ludicrous for the existing schooling system to be abolished as it seems that the huge majority of parents want it. I could say it would be the minority pushing their views but it's more a case of the tail wagging the dog!

Your conclusions are exactly what I have been trying to say, but I think some have misinterpreted me as saying I am against secular schools, which is absolutly incorrect.

I am arguing only that people be allowed to choose for themselves.

CerebralCortex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Your conclusions are exactly what I have been trying to say, but I think some have misinterpreted me as saying I am against secular schools, which is absolutly incorrect.

I am arguing only that people be allowed to choose for themselves.

So how do you work it. The state employs the teachers, owns the schools and accepts the kids in the local area, increasing the school size if the number of kids grow, but the church pays for the tuition of faith stuff can use the school but after hours? Sounds fair to me.

AudreyHepburn

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So how do you work it. The state employs the teachers, owns the schools and accepts the kids in the local area, increasing the school size if the number of kids grow, but the church pays for the tuition of faith stuff can use the school but after hours? Sounds fair to me.

That sounds fair, though I don't see why religious instruction should be restricted to after hours?

Every other aspect of your point I agree with and in fairness I have never said otherwise.

philologos

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That sounds fair, though I don't see why religious instruction should be restricted to after hours?

Every other aspect of your point I agree with and in fairness I have never said otherwise.

I don't see how it is fair as long as people of faith pay tax. For as long as that happens compromise is the best option.

CerebralCortex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That sounds fair, though I don't see why religious instruction should be restricted to after hours?

Every other aspect of your point I agree with and in fairness I have never said otherwise.

Because it has nothing to do with the states role as an educator and is incompatible with free, secular, society.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how it is fair as long as people of faith pay tax. For as long as that happens compromise is the best option.

People of faith and non faith pay tax a like, this is a secular society(should be) so that you can be whatever religion you like and still get the same service as everyone else. The government pandering to one opinion(religion, greed) over facts and rationality is what has gotten us into trouble in the past. What you are suggesting is like in Germany where you pay tax for your respective religion but if bring that into schools it would probably get quite sectarian.

Turtwig

Ok, this is getting rather depressing now. Throughout this thread the argument supporting faith schools has been nothing more than superficial drivel. Can, we please, you know, have a reason for why they should exist?

Oh and I'll give you a hint here, saying because people want them isn't actually a reason. It's like rewinding back to the past and saying well the majority want slavery so therefore it is acceptable. Please provide reasons for or against faith schools that are actually independent of the numbers of people demanding it.

Dades

philologos wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

Because unless there's some point to maintaining single-faith instruction within school hours there is no point in keeping them when clearly a no-single faith system is the obvious answer.

How is it the obvious answer? I can't see any benefit for anyone in making all schools secular. Thankfully neither does the Government right now. I'm arguing that faith schools can be and are beneficial to many students and that some students are better suited to faith schools than secular schools.

You appear to have missed (again) my point and my initial question.

One more time:

Dades wrote: »

Remind me again what it is that children learn in catholic "faith schools" that they won't learn from a few hours a week outside of school?

If someone can explain why exactly RE has to be interspersed throughout the school day then I'm all ears.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

People of faith and non faith pay tax a like, this is a secular society(should be) so that you can be whatever religion you like and still get the same service as everyone else. The government pandering to one opinion(religion, greed) over facts and rationality is what has gotten us into trouble in the past. What you are suggesting is like in Germany where you pay tax for your respective religion but if bring that into schools it would probably get quite sectarian.

I don't agree that society should be secular. Rather it should be pluralist. If society were secular it would mean that society would have little regard for faith. That's not particularly the society I would desire.

As for whether the State should be impartial towards religious belief. Certainly. That's precisely why I think the State should provide both faith and secular schools. I.E That it provides sufficient choice for all.

As for sectarian. For the umpteenth time in the thread if that is the case how come second level faith schools in Britain score higher in respect to equality and social cohesion in Ofsted figures than their secular counterparts?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree that society should be secular. Rather it should be pluralist. If society were secular it would mean that society would have little regard for faith. That's not particularly the society I would desire.

That's all you had to say and is the root of the matter and why we'll never agree on education. What you describe though sounds more like representational theocracy more than pluralism.

Mistress 69

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, this is getting rather depressing now. Throughout this thread the argument supporting faith schools has been nothing more than superficial drivel. Can, we please, you know, have a reason for why they should exist?

Oh and I'll give you a hint here, saying because people want them isn't actually a reason. It's like rewinding back to the past and saying well the majority want slavery so therefore it is acceptable. Please provide reasons for or against faith schools that are actually independent of the numbers of people demanding it.

These are tired old arguments making comparisons to slavery. Often happens when trying to defend a very weak position. I can use the Italian argument re the Crucifix case, .. People want it.. hang around the schoolyard some morning next september and do a survey and I bet you will be surprised. It is a reason, sorry about that chief!

BluntGuy

Mistress 69 wrote: »

These are tired old arguments making comparisons to slavery. Often happens when trying to defend a very weak position. I can use the Italian argument re the Crucifix case, .. People want it.. hang around the schoolyard some morning next september and do a survey and I bet you will be surprised. It is a reason, sorry about that chief!

The argument being made is that just because a majority desire something, it doesn't make it right or mean it should happen. Rational, pragmatic, positive arguments are desired, not "X people want it" or argument from tradition etc.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That's all you had to say and is the root of the matter and why we'll never agree on education. What you describe though sounds more like representational theocracy more than pluralism.

Let's start with this definition:

Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

I believe there are a number of different levels:

1. Governmental secularism in respect to favouring no demographic in respect to faith or no faith. A given.

2. Societal secularism where society expresses a disregard of faith. I don't think this is a given in our society or in any other society on the face of the earth. Society isn't characterised by "having no religious or spiritual basis". Rather society is characterised by a number of different beliefs. That's why it is a pluralism. Many people in society have beliefs which have a religious or a spiritual basis. To be honest with you a society where nobody had any "religious or spiritual basis" in terms of a society I'd like to live in would be comparable to living in a theocracy in my opinion, just in the opposite.

3. Individual secularism - on an individual level I couldn't be described as a secular person even though I would advocate Governmental secularism in the respect of the State not favouring any one religion over another. I believe and trust in God over all things in my life. Therefore I can't be regarded as "having no religious or spiritual basis".

I think Jurgen Habermas' philosophy on discourse ethics is very useful. A society is comprised of many different demographics. All should be able to bring their POV to the table in order to form a discussion. No one view is favoured but people decide upon what is most reasonable between them. Consensus politics is much better than having people trying to ram position X or Y into legislation whether they be atheists, Orthodox Jews, Christians or Muslims.

AudreyHepburn

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Because it has nothing to do with the states role as an educator and is incompatible with free, secular, society.

Surely in a free society there should not any restrictions on how people worship and how they are educated in their faith?

Mistress 69

BluntGuy wrote: »

The argument being made is that just because a majority desire something, it doesn't make it right or mean it should happen. Rational, pragmatic, positive arguments are desired, not "X people want it" or argument from tradition etc.

Equally, just because a minority desire acheivment of their objectives does not necessarily mean they should be attained. In the specific case of the forum I would be surprised if it behaved in an irrational manner.

Would you advise the forum to to remove religous ethos from ALL schools in the state? Could that be considered irrational?

Turtwig

Mistress 69 wrote: »

These are tired old arguments making comparisons to slavery. Often happens when trying to defend a very weak position. I can use the Italian argument re the Crucifix case, .. People want it.. hang around the schoolyard some morning next september and do a survey and I bet you will be surprised. It is a reason, sorry about that chief!

Your position is pathetically weak. "The majority of kids don't want to go school, ergo they should be allowed to skip school." or "The majority of adults don't want to pay taxes ergo no one should pay tax." Of course, these are ridiculous statements. Yet I just used your exact line of reasoning. In this day and age people are expected to provide reasons other than "because the majority want it" to support their positions. They need to explain why this position is going to be beneficial to society as a whole going forward. For example, let's say your position was in support of a smoking ban in public places. It should be obvious that the argument claiming that a majority of people want such a ban is inferior to the argument that passive smoking is harmful to the health of all.

AudreyHepburn

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok, this is getting rather depressing now. Throughout this thread the argument supporting faith schools has been nothing more than superficial drivel. Can, we please, you know, have a reason for why they should exist?

Oh and I'll give you a hint here, saying because people want them isn't actually a reason. It's like rewinding back to the past and saying well the majority want slavery so therefore it is acceptable. Please provide reasons for or against faith schools that are actually independent of the numbers of people demanding it.

It might not be a good enough reason for you but it is a reason whether you like it or not.

coffee_cake

Malty_T wrote: »

Your position is pathetically weak. "The majority of kids don't want to go school, ergo they should be allowed to skip school." or "The majority of adults don't want to pay taxes ergo no one should pay tax." Of course, these are ridiculous statements. Yet I just used your exact line of reasoning. In this day and age people are expected to provide reasons other than "because the majority want it" to support their positions. They need to explain why this position is going to be beneficial to society as a whole going forward. For example, let's say your position was in support of a smoking ban in public places. It should be obvious that the argument claiming that a majority of people want such a ban is inferior to the argument that passive smoking is harmful to the health of all.

This reminds me of the article by that priest a while back which basically amounted to "of course you should go to mass and if you don't you're just acting like a child who won't brush their teeth even though it's good for them" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I think Jurgen Habermas' philosophy on discourse ethics is very useful.

Does Jurgen Habermas discuss answering questions?

I've no particular wish to offend you, or to appear to offend you, but I'm asking this because it's fascinating how many questions you're not answering, and equally so, what questions you're not answering. Which is why the discussion is going around in circles.

Is it something you're doing intentionally, or are you unaware of it?

AudreyHepburn

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how it is fair as long as people of faith pay tax. For as long as that happens compromise is the best option.

Yes I see where you are coming from, but I think Cerebral's suggestion is the fairest we'll be able to agree on.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Surely in a free society there should not any restrictions on how people worship and how they are educated in their faith?

Yes, of course there should be. Especially once their religious practices begin to infringe upon the rights of others.

Would you support a religion in which women sign themselves up for a lifetime within separate solitary groups, separated from all men, save for high-priest-level clerics? Would you support a religion in which people were regularly executed at the behest of priests?

philologos

robindch: Those questions as far as I'm aware have already been answered several times in this thread. I've explained rather clearly that it's not that I feel that they are a necessity, but that society is better off with faith schools than without them as they provide sufficient choice for parents. I'm not even sure if I had the choice which I would send any hypothetical children I may or may not have to but I feel that the choice should be there for parents.

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

robindch: Those questions as far as I'm aware have already been answered several times in this thread. I've explained rather clearly that it's not that I feel that they are a necessity, but that society is better off with faith schools than without them as they provide sufficient choice for parents.

You have yet to explain how society is better off...

BluntGuy

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Equally, just because a minority desire acheivment of their objectives does not necessarily mean they should be attained.

Absolutely which is why I stated:

Rational, pragmatic, positive arguments are desired, not "X people want it" or argument from tradition etc.

Would you advise the forum to to remove religous ethos from ALL schools in the state? Could that be considered irrational?

As has been stated numerous times by other posters, the job of a state-funded school is to educate children. It is not their job to reinforce my or anyone else's particular set of beliefs - be they religious, non-religious etc.

As it is simply not pragmatic (and in my opinion not desirable) to have a state-funded school which conforms to the particular ethos, philosophy or beliefs of every single parent in the country, secular education is the most sensible and fair option.

What I think people are asking for is a set of positive, pragmatic, rational reasons from the other side, why the state, and thus taxpayers should pay for schools whose function is to reinforce arbitrary beliefs of certain children's parents. Can you provide some?

Mistress 69

Malty_T wrote: »

Your position is pathetically weak. For example, let's say your position was in support of a smoking ban in public places. It should be obvious that the argument claiming that a majority of people want such a ban is inferior to the argument that passive smoking is harmful to the health of all.

No point qouting your entire post back to you, and on the contrary I think my position is relatively strong. This is going to go around and around in ever decreasing circles as is usually the case. We are where we are ... I know... tired old phrase from post boom Ireland.

However if you want change what would you advise the forum to do?

Turtwig

Mistress 69 wrote: »

No point qouting your entire post back to you, and on the contrary I think my position is relatively strong. This is going to go around and around in ever decreasing circles as is usually the case. We are where we are ... I know... tired old phrase from post boom Ireland.

However if you want change what would you advise the forum to do?

Just two question then :
"IF a majority of people demand something, should they be given that demand?"
"If a minority of people demand something, should they be given that demand?"

Yes or no, will suffice.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

robindch: Those questions as far as I'm aware have already been answered several times in this thread. I've explained rather clearly that it's not that I feel that they are a necessity, but that society is better off with faith schools than without them as they provide sufficient choice for parents. I'm not even sure if I had the choice which I would send any hypothetical children I may or may not have to but I feel that the choice should be there for parents.

and what about the points mentioned in the article I posted about the faith schools increasing segregation and racial tensions?

That the faith schools are more discriminating with regards to admissions, so this artificially inflates ratings in their favour.

Not to forget that they also teach religious parables as science in some schools.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Those questions as far as I'm aware have already been answered several times in this thread.

You've stuck to this "choice" response rigidly and avoided just about every other question you've been asked. Indeed, now that I think about it, I believe you've replied with this "choice" response to just about every question.

Once question I've asked time and again is this one:

Since you know that the state doesn't have enough money to build one school for each religious group, why do you repeatedly claim that this is the only solution?

AudreyHepburn

Malty_T wrote: »

Just two question then :
"IF a majority of people demand something, should they be given that demand?"
"If a minority of people demand something, should they be given that demand?"

Yes or no, will suffice.

No to both.

It must come down to what is in the best interest of all the people.

And for me that is allowing them freedom to choose.

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

Yes, of course there should be. Especially once their religious practices begin to infringe upon the rights of others.

Would you support a religion in which women sign themselves up for a lifetime within separate solitary groups, separated from all men, save for high-priest-level clerics? Would you support a religion in which people were regularly executed at the behest of priests?

Tbh I don't think there is any point me answer that because I have a feeling you will probably just reply that I do support such a religion, though I wouldn't have thought I do.