Primary school college course and atheism

Peregrinus

muppeteer wrote: »

Emm you may have picked me up wrong. I was just asking are chaplains paid out of state monies for services in religious schools and hospitals on a similar basis to teachers being paid out of state monies in religious schools? I always assumed any chaplains would have been paid by their diocese?.

Chaplains in schools, hospitals, prisons and the defence forces are generally paid for by the state, at least to some extent. If the churches want greater provision of chaplaincy services than the state is willing to pay for, they have to fund that themselves. Chaplains in other fields - e.g. port chaplains - are generally paid for by the churches, thought they may get, e.g., office space at public expense.

Contrary to what I think JonPeirson is suggesting in his post, this isn’t unique to Ireland. It’s pretty much the European norm. In France, for example, the home of laïcité, chaplains are provided by the state on the grounds that, if the state requires you to attend school or to be confined in prison, or if you are serving the state (or required to serve the state) in the defence forces, then the state has a responsibility to vindicate your right to practice your religion.

Even in the US, the country whose political culture has the strongest prohibition on any form of state funding for churches, public money provides chaplains in the armed services, in hospitals (sometimes) and, surprisingly, in the Houses of Congress.

muppeteer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Contrary to what I think JonPeirson is suggesting in his post, this isn’t unique to Ireland. It’s pretty much the European norm. In France, for example, the home of laïcité, chaplains are provided by the state on the grounds that, if the state requires you to attend school or to be confined in prison, or if you are serving the state (or required to serve the state) in the defence forces, then the state has a responsibility to vindicate your right to practice your religion.

The French justification is interesting, although I would see it being farer to allow access rather than pay for chaplains if you are required to attend school/military. Anywho the in-depth reasons might be best left to another thread:)

JonPierson

I don't know enough about this to 'multi-quote'. My (30+ years of) IT expertise is on mainframes, not glorified games consoles, so please excuse me.

muppeteer, I really do not think that I picked you up wrong. The Irish State uses all taxpayers' money to fund religions. It does not matter whether you believe in a god or gods or which god or gods you believe in, if you are a taxpayer, some your money is used to give to religions. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the religions do with the money; employ chaplains, build churches, pay chaplains or bribe families not to tell the feds about a priest sticking his dick up a boy's arse, I do not see it as the State's business to be giving my money to any religion for any purpose.

As for Peregrinus, the same applies. I care nothing for what the citizens of any other State decide to allow their government to do with their money, I want my tax euros to be spent on a secular, not a religious basis.

I understand the reasoning in relation to the provision of chaplains in prisons or the defences forces (I served in the RAF myself) but I maintain that it is not the business of the general public to support religions giving their followers any services, it is for each religion's followers to pay for the services themselves. Looking at it from an equitable perspective, where all a treated equally, exactly what equivalent service does the State pay for when it comes to atheists and agnostics? Or Wiccans? Or Satanists? Or Jedi Knights? Or any other of the wall, non-mainstream religion or philosophy?

As a society, we must decide whether to treat all equally, by not giving money to any religion or non-religious philosophy (which I favour) or give proportionate amounts to any Tom, Dick or Harry group that makes any claim to a belief system... even if it's only one person in Ireland who believes, for example, that Prince Philip (the Duke of Edinburgh and husband of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom), is a divine being, as do members of the Yaohnanen tribe on the southern island of Tanna in Vanuatu. (Yes, sadly it's true. Look it up. Let's pay them to teach kids in schools about it and give solace to the sick in our hospitals.)

Where would anyone reading this draw the line?

Peregrinus

muppeteer wrote: »

The French justification is interesting, although I would see it being farer to allow access rather than pay for chaplains if you are required to attend school/military. Anywho the in-depth reasons might be best left to another thread

I agree, we are straying rather a long way from the question of the syllabus content in the Hibernia College BA in Education degree. Still, the side-roads do throw up interesting points.

In the Angloblogosphere we are so familiar with the US take on the separation of church and state that we forget there are others. And we probably would do well to remember that there are others, when we notice that the US model is entirely compatible with a political system that gives us a President George W. Bush. Maybe the French model deserves a closer look!

Separation of church and state is not straightforward. One of the problems is nicely highlighted by JonPierson in his post just above, where he says:

JonPierson wrote: »

. . . I care nothing for what the citizens of any other State decide to allow their government to do with their money, I want my tax euros to be spent on a secular, not a religious basis . . .

As a society, we must decide whether to treat all equally, by not giving money to any religion or non-religious philosophy (which I favour) or give proportionate amounts to any Tom, Dick or Harry group that makes any claim to a belief system . . .

Spot the tension? Jon doesn’t want state resources to go to “any religion or non-religious philosophy”. but he also wants state resources to be spent “on a secular . . . basis”. Yet secularism is plainly a non-religious philosophy.

I’m not having a go at Jon (really, Jon!) but his post does highlight a tension which is difficult to reconcile. I suspect we probably need to think fairly hard about the distinction between (a) secularism, (b) pluralism and (c) neutrality, and also about the distinction between (a) the state, and (b) society. For example, is a pluralist society best served by a secular state or by a pluralist one? Should a secular state be (a) secular, or (b) neutral in its social expenditures? And so forth.

Yes, this deserves a separate thread. No, I’m not going to start it.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, this deserves a separate thread. No, I’m not going to start it.

I've started one here.

recedite

Update on the teacher training issue;
Two or three of the colleges seem to be evolving, with a view towards filling the newly opening up niche for secular teacher training. But "Mary I" digging in its heels; preparing to become the RCC flagship college.

Galvasean

recedite wrote: »

Update on the teacher training issue;
Two or three of the colleges seem to be evolving, with a view towards filling the newly opening up niche for secular teacher training. But "Mary I" digging in its heels; preparing to become the RCC flagship college.

"subjects such as science, history and geography were allotted 12 hours each in contrast to the 48 hours allotted to religious education."

Small wonder it has a poor reputation. It will only continue to fall behind if it sticks to these guns.

Solair

I think perhaps we should just put it to a referendum?

Should the state secularise the school system...

Rather than having this endless debate around the issue, just get it over with. I don't think it's that controversial and but I do think that the vested interests would have any change to the system dragged out for decades.

Let people decide, see what happens!

Give the minister a mandate to do it, or don't.

There are several referenda coming up anyway, so just ask this on the Seanad Reform ballot paper or the children's rights one.

Penn

Solair wrote: »

I think perhaps we should just put it to a referendum?

Should the state secularise the school system...

Rather than having this endless debate around the issue, just get it over with. I don't think it's that controversial and but I do think that the vested interests would have any change to the system dragged out for decades.

Let people decide, see what happens!

Give the minister a mandate to do it, or don't.

There are several referenda coming up anyway, so just ask this on the Seanad Reform ballot paper or the children's rights one.

The problem with that is, if secularism loses, it's f*cked. And when you imagine what could come from both sides campaigning for this in a referendum, I think a lot of people will be scaremongered into voting no with religious groups calling it "an attack on religious freedom" etc.

If people don't know what's happening, they'll usually vote to keep things as they are. We need more secular schools for a while to show people they work just fine. Then people would be more likely to vote for them in a referendum

Newaglish

Solair wrote: »

I think perhaps we should just put it to a referendum?

Should the state secularise the school system...

Rather than having this endless debate around the issue, just get it over with. I don't think it's that controversial and but I do think that the vested interests would have any change to the system dragged out for decades.

Let people decide, see what happens!

Give the minister a mandate to do it, or don't.

There are several referenda coming up anyway, so just ask this on the Seanad Reform ballot paper or the children's rights one.

A referendum would imply that we need to change the constitution but I would argue that it already states clearly the State is not to endow any particular religion which I believe should lead to a secular school system regardless.

Hotblack Desiato

Also parents have a constitutional right not to have their children instructed in a religion not of their choosing; this right is violated in schools across the State every single day.

Solair

Newaglish wrote: »

A referendum would imply that we need to change the constitution but I would argue that it already states clearly the State is not to endow any particular religion which I believe should lead to a secular school system regardless.

Re: referendum, not necessarily.

A referendum could be called for another purpose, if the Government so wished. They would just need to pass a referendum on (insert topic) act.

However, I do agree on the fact that the current system could be possibly deemed to be unconstitutional. A test case would be worth taking.

For example:


I don't know how the existing system does not breech this:
Religion Article 44

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion. (That bit's a bit monotheistic, but it doesn't say anything other than it won't dis' religion)
   
2. 
   
   1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen. (Not always the case ... e.g. a teacher could be refused employment based on religious views / lack there of)
   
   2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion. (Not the case - It de facto endows RC Church & C of I all the time)
   
   3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status. (Not the case in education e.g. teachers unable to find work etc)
   
   4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school. (Could do with modernisation by referendum)
   
   5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
   
   6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation. (Why is this even here? Is it not covered by the same rules as any other corporate entity??? Same applies to 5º)
   
   

I believe that Article 42 is not complied with by the current situation too:
"

1. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation. "

OK, so if you're not Catholic or Church of Ireland and live in a rural area - how exactly does this work?

number10a

Solair wrote: »

1. 
   6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation. (Why is this even here? Is it not covered by the same rules as any other corporate entity??? Same applies to 5º)
   

Off topic, but I always imagined that this bit was put in to assuage the fears of the religious institutions that Church property could be confiscated en masse by the State like what happened in France after the Revolution.

recedite

Solair wrote: »

I don't know how the existing system does not breech this:
Religion Article 44



1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen. (Not always the case ... e.g. a teacher could be refused employment based on religious views / lack there of)

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion. (Not the case - It de facto endows RC Church & C of I all the time)

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status. (Not the case in education e.g. teachers unable to find work etc)

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school. (Could do with modernisation by referendum)

5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.

6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation. (Why is this even here? Is it not covered by the same rules as any other corporate entity??? Same applies to 5º)


[/LIST]




I believe that Article 42 is not complied with by the current situation too:
"

1. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation. "

OK, so if you're not Catholic or Church of Ireland and live in a rural area - how exactly does this work?

Its a pity they put in "4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools...." otherwise you could argue that the State "providing for education" by paying religious cults to run schools is a contravention of the others.
To my mind, this 4°(aid for religious schools) is in direct opposition to "2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion".
Perhaps if the two were shown to be contradictory, a referendum could be forced in order to get rid of the contradiction?


Once you have allowed the State to endow schools having a particular religious "ethos", then the other evils follow ( teachers being refused employment to protect the "ethos", pupils technically allowed to sit outside for religion classes, but stigmatised, and still immersed in the "ethos" throughout the school day)

expectationlost

so was the hibernia religious parts of the course rewritten?

darealtulip

The parts are removed and as far as I know the course is being rewritten with help of Michael Nugent chairman of Atheist Ireland

abba twar screams

D4RK ONION wrote: »

I went to Mary I myself, and while they do their best to shove Catholicism down your throat at every turn, I must say there was never any slander of other religious standpoints/beliefs/lack of; by the college in either the lectures or the courses.

That's not to say that they were acknowledged or catered for, but there was never anything like that first question. That's bloody INSANE.

As for teaching in this country, get used to being a massive hypocrite when it comes to doing the job you always wanted to do. Alive O is mentally numbing.

As I understand it - 'lack of belief' is not a ground for discrimination under the equality laws in Ireland - so I guess it's open season on atheists - with no consequences for the slanderers

expectationlost

darealtulip wrote: »

The parts are removed

are they?

so fr twomey who refused to back from any of the points he made and michael are sitting down writing the course together?

darealtulip

expectationlost wrote: »

are they?

so fr twomey who refused to back from any of the points he made and michael are sitting down writting the course together?

They should be, he did not go back on the points but as I understand it he was the author of the course but Hibernia removed the paragraphs as it was not up to him to decide what stays in and not. fr twomey has no decission and Michael advised hibernia about atheism and humanism. No they did not sit together.

We had a promise in writing that they are removed

expectationlost

still have my doubts about the quality of hibernia courses after all this

Mardy Bum

darealtulip wrote: »

They should be, he did not go back on the points but as I understand it he was the author of the course but Hibernia removed the paragraphs as it was not up to him to decide what stays in and not. fr twomey has no decission and Michael advised hibernia about atheism and humanism. No they did not sit together.

We had a promise in writing that they are removed

Save the trouble this caused, they should just get rid of the course all together. All it is a money spinner crapping out sub par graduates by the lorry load.

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

still have my doubts about the quality of hibernia courses after all this

No credible institution of learning could let that guff slip through.

oceanclub

Does anyone know anyone at Hibernian who can confirm the material on atheism and Hinduism were re-written?

P.

silverharp

oceanclub wrote: »

Does anyone know anyone at Hibernian who can confirm the material on atheism and Hinduism were re-written?

P.

they seem to be aware of it


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia_College

The college offers a Higher Diploma in Arts in Primary Education accredited by the Department of Education and Skills.[1] The religious education section was written by Vincent Twomey and criticised in 2011 by Atheist Ireland for including the statement "atheist humanism produced the worst horrors history has ever witnessed", also presented as a true-false exam question with required answer "true".[2][3][4] The college authorities agreed to revise the material in consultation with Atheist Ireland.[3]
The college also runs post-graduate and masters programmes in teaching and learning for post-primary teaching.
[edit]

Kiwi in IE

silverharp wrote: »

they seem to be aware of it


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia_College

I have an inability to get my head around the fact that a Teacher Training College has been teaching this bullsh*t in the 21st century. The intention that these trainee teachers will then go out and attempt to indoctrinate children in tax payer funded state schools with this utter crap, whether they are Catholic or not, is frightening.

Atheists have committed the worst atrocities? HAHAHAHAHA! The RCC is one of the most evil organisations the world has ever seen. They are responsible for numerous atrocities, modern and historical, and their blatant denial of responsibility for these atrocities can only be viewed by a rational person as delusional from followers and pure evil from hierarchy.

It makes me feel sick to think that my child would be taught in 90% of state schools that this institution is a source of good and a moral authority.

Turtwig

^^^
You seem to be assuming that people remember what they learn in college.:pac:

expectationlost

oceanclub wrote: »

Does anyone know anyone at Hibernian who can confirm the material on atheism and Hinduism were re-written?

P.

no we don't know, we been told by AI here but we never heard it from Hibernian.

Turtwig

I suggest starting a kickstarter to enrol a person in the course to find out definitely once and for all.

Corkfeen

Jernal wrote: »

I suggest starting a kickstarter to enrol a person in the course to find out definitely once and for all.

Want to become a teacher? :pac:

expectationlost

Merger of Catholic and Protestant Colleges of Education may be finalised by 2016 http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/merger-of-catholic-and-protestant-colleges-of-education-may-be-finalised-by-2016-1.1789561#.U3DTQgee6tB.twitter do we have any secular teacher training or not?

DCU is stting up Institute of Education and they say they'll ahve specialised instruction for whoever wants it, but the devil is in the detail