A Secular State for a Pluralist People

jank

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont have to have kids to know how people are likely to turn out if you segregate their education. Do you think the mass of adult morons we have now, who blindly self label as catholic on the census, or decry secular public services as not irish (because Ireland is a "catholic country" :rolleyes:) because they had open educations that informed equally of various cultures and religions and allowed them to make up their minds?


And is that because of or despite the specialist religious education they got in the christian schools? I've seen the type of stuff that goes for religious education in schools these days. Retard is the only thing it does, unless the kid doesn't take any of it on board. Its questionable if even teachers of these schools are taught to be open-minded and tolerant of other faiths.


You are saying there is little to no difference in course content between an educate together school and a Christian controlled school in terms of religion? Don't ET schools leave all the indoctrination and specific christian ceremonies (communion) out of the school day? Whats the point if they are same? Why did you bother choosing an ET school if that is the case?


After seeing the abuse that was thrown at the people who who appeared on the late late show last year calling for secular schools it's clear that Ireland's heartland is about as tolerant to state secularism as Saudi Arabia.

Well done Mark, keep up the good work!



Also, comparing Ireland to Saudi Arabia? LOL. Got to love hyperbole.

jank

Deleted User wrote: »

If you say so, but I'd need a bit more evidence, because in the absence of the experience of parenting you do give the distinct impression of someone who is just talking in the abstract. I've already given you an example of a group of people I know, all aged around 14-16, of mixed religions and no religion, who hang out together and who are open-minded, tolerant of and interested in other faiths and belief systems - all of whom are in secondary schools that are either Catholic or Protestant. If these schools are such a bad thing, what on Earth has happened to these youngsters? Shouldn't someone warn the Archbishop of Dublin? Or the other Archbishop of Dublin?




I know loads of Catholics, and I quite like many of them. Very few of them strike me as being "adult morons". Do you always refer to people who don't see things your way as being "morons"? That's bad manners; one might go so far as to say it's a tad intolerant, closed-minded, and not at all in alignment with the concept of pluralism.




Where? Boards threads don't count.





I am? I think you need to read what I posted again.




Try being an atheist in Saudi Arabia. How long before you'd be longing for home, eh?

I'm an atheist, and despite living in Ireland's heartland of liberalism and tolerance (see if you get the reference this time) I have to admit to not having much tolerance for state secularism as you seem to want it. I want proper space made in the system for secularism, humanism and atheism, and I want "no religion" given the same respect and standing as "any religion". I do not want Christianity squeezed out of Ireland's culture and public discourse, and I think we would lose more than we would gain were such a thing to happen.

Here's a thought for you. What you're talking about here - what this thread is about - is Ireland's public realm and its public services. Before you go jumping in with a cure, can you specifically set out what illness you are trying to fix?

And if you're going to tackle that notion, please do so in the style of atheists rather than the style of religious fundamentalists. Something is not true simply because you believe it to be so; you need to adduce your evidence. So demonstrate what is wrong, and demonstrate how your solutions will make things better, rather than just assuming that what you believe in is true.

Must say I agree with a lot of this. Some people see secularism in schools as a something that must be achieved at all costs, totally ignoring what it actually means and the culture of the country in which they live.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

You're quite right, that only happens at second level. In my defence, I haven't been paying close attention to my local ET school for a few years. There is some rule for primary schools that a certain amount of time each week has to be set aside for the religious ethos of the school patrons. My son's ET school used that time to teach his class a lot of what I'd call "comparative religion". He became a walking encyclopedia on the ins and outs of all sorts of faiths.

Actually, I don't think he's ever scored less than 95% in an RE test at school. :eek:

All the former ET kids seem to be the same. :eek::eek:

Well, that's secularism for you. Its the same in this forum; most people here know more about the doctrines of various religions than the followers themselves

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

If you say so, but I'd need a bit more evidence, because in the absence of the experience of parenting you do give the distinct impression of someone who is just talking in the abstract. I've already given you an example of a group of people I know, all aged around 14-16, of mixed religions and no religion, who hang out together and who are open-minded, tolerant of and interested in other faiths and belief systems - all of whom are in secondary schools that are either Catholic or Protestant. If these schools are such a bad thing, what on Earth has happened to these youngsters? Shouldn't someone warn the Archbishop of Dublin? Or the other Archbishop of Dublin?

So me pointing out the ignorant societal level reaction to people calling for fairness in the school system (the Late Late Show debacle I mentioned) isn't evidence, but your kids friends are?

Deleted User wrote: »

I know loads of Catholics, and I quite like many of them. Very few of them strike me as being "adult morons". Do you always refer to people who don't see things your way as being "morons"? That's bad manners; one might go so far as to say it's a tad intolerant, closed-minded, and not at all in alignment with the concept of pluralism.

And one might say that your point here is empty of content and just childishly trying to distract from my accurate description of events. My manners have jack sh*t to do with whether I'm right and I think the public display of ignorance and intolerance for the people who want fairness in the school system trumps your personal experience of catholics.

Deleted User wrote: »

Where? Boards threads don't count.

Of course they do, why wouldn't they? You dont get to discount evidence because you dont like being wrong.
Besides, you have the Late Late show episode I mentioned and the public reaction from it. Then you have that teacher training college that was forcing teachers to agree (and then teach to kids) ignorant, hate filled misinformation about atheism and secularism (and Hinduism). This is the A&A thread about it, but read towards the end, it ended up with Atheism Ireland debating against it on the radio with the course director both calling the material out of context and objective fact.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am? I think you need to read what I posted again.

"The RE my son encountered in his ET school seems to have been virtually indistinguishable from the RE his mates got in their Catholic schools"
Am I missing something?

Deleted User wrote: »

Try being an atheist in Saudi Arabia. How long before you'd be longing for home, eh?

Try reading what I said: "Ireland's heartland is about as tolerant to state secularism as Saudi Arabia. "
Ireland is quite tolerant to individual choices. If you want to be an atheist, gay, transexual, jedi, its all good. But the second you call for fairness in public services, the second you point out that schools should not actually indoctrinate young kids into one religion, or that the national broadcaster shouldn't use state money to perpetually fund prime time advertisements for one singular religion, you get decried as attacking christians, you get told that Ireland is a catholic country and told to stop oppressing people.

Deleted User wrote: »

I want proper space made in the system for secularism, humanism and atheism, and I want "no religion" given the same respect and standing as "any religion". I do not want Christianity squeezed out of Ireland's culture and public discourse,

And there is you problem. Christianity does not need to be the default in public services in order to be in Irelands culture and public discourse. That is exactly the kind of ignorant, knee jerk response to secularism that arises from having indoctrinating religious schools. What does it say about our culture of christianity that it would so obviously disappear if it were given unjustifiable favour in our governmental system?

Deleted User wrote: »

and I think we would lose more than we would gain were such a thing to happen.

Such as? Because I cant think of a thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's a thought for you. What you're talking about here - what this thread is about - is Ireland's public realm and its public services. Before you go jumping in with a cure, can you specifically set out what illness you are trying to fix?

Thats a pointless question, have you not been ready the thread, or my posts?

Deleted User wrote: »

And if you're going to tackle that notion, please do so in the style of atheists rather than the style of religious fundamentalists. Something is not true simply because you believe it to be so; you need to adduce your evidence. So demonstrate what is wrong, and demonstrate how your solutions will make things better, rather than just assuming that what you believe in is true.

And what exactly is your evidence? besides you kids school friends who you apparently hang out with?

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you want me to explain that? The question is something of a non sequitur.

Either that is borderline trolling you honestly believe that the tautology of "if people remove religion from public services then they lose religion from public services" is a meaningful point. Either way, if something sensible doesn't come from this particular point, I think I'm done with you. Your points as a whole are starting to become as informed and logical as dead ones.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Either that is borderline trolling you honestly believe that the tautology of "if people remove religion from public services then they lose religion from public services" is a meaningful point. Either way, if something sensible doesn't come from this particular point, I think I'm done with you. Your points as a whole are starting to become as informed and logical as dead ones.

I didn't ask you the question. I asked robindch.

I asked the question because robindch asked me to explain explain what I think the country, and the people in it, might lose if all forms of religion were squeezed out?

But that's not related to what I said. I didn't refer to all forms of religion. I referred to one.

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't ask you the question. I asked robindch.

What kind of deflection is that? This is a public forum, anyone can see, and question, any question or point anyone else makes. Robindch was questioning a point you made to me.

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked the question because robindch asked me to explain explain what I think the country, and the people in it, might lose if all forms of religion were squeezed out?

But that's not related to what I said. I didn't refer to all forms of religion. I referred to one.

So the other religions dont matter, only christianity?
So what exactly would the country and the people lose if christianity was removed from public services?

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

Also, comparing Ireland to Saudi Arabia? LOL. Got to love hyperbole.

Try reading my post again, as what I meant obviously went over your head.

Mark Hamill

jank wrote: »

Must say I agree with a lot of this. Some people see secularism in schools as a something that must be achieved at all costs, totally ignoring what it actually means and the culture of the country in which they live.

Serious question now - do you know what "secularism" actually means? Do you know what "culture" means?

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So me pointing out the ignorant societal level reaction to people calling for fairness in the school system (the Late Late Show debacle I mentioned) isn't evidence, but your kids friends are?

Is that a question or a statement? Assuming for a moment that it is a question (though one never knows for sure when someone starts a question with "So"), the answer is maybe. Maybe the attitudes displayed on the Late Late show are evidence, and maybe the attitudes displayed by my son's friends are also evidence. I'll leave the question of what these differing phenomena might mean as evidence until nearer the end of this post.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My manners have jack sh*t to do with whether I'm right

If you say so. However, your lack of manners is very pertinent, for two reasons.

Firstly, if someone's argument is strongly founded, and if they are capable of sustaining that argument, then they don't need to resort to ill-mannered and pejorative remarks about those who don't agree with their argument. But you did resort to ill-mannered and pejorative remarks, which suggests either a weakness in your argument or a lack of capacity to sustain it on meeting an opposing view.

Secondly, if one claims to want to promote pluralism, calling people "morons" because they have different views does not lend that claim any credibility. To put it a simpler way, "pluralism" does not mean "do it my way or else, you moron".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

....I think the public display of ignorance and intolerance for the people who want fairness in the school system trumps your personal experience of catholics.

I thought we were discussing pluralism, not card games.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

....you have the Late Late show episode I mentioned and the public reaction from it.

Ah, the Late Late again. I haven't seen the show, and maybe I should (though I suspect that it'll turn out to be a whole load of minutes of my life I'll never get back). But before I put in that time investment, here's a question for you. Would it be accurate or inaccurate to describe the people in the Late Late (the "morons", to use your terminology) as, for want of a better term, young?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"The RE my son encountered in his ET school seems to have been virtually indistinguishable from the RE his mates got in their Catholic schools"

Am I missing something?

You're not exactly missing something. I think you've got something extra, to be honest. You jumped to a conclusion, and assumed that in describing the experiences of a number of young people in a number of schools I was extrapolating from that to assume that the same was true of all schools. I make no such claim - but for the purposes of this discussion I don't need to make such a claim.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is exactly the kind of ignorant, knee jerk response to secularism that arises from having indoctrinating religious schools.

But are you sure that the knee jerk response to secularism arises from schools? Where is your evidence that it comes from schools and not from some other source? Or multiple sources? WADR, it looks as if you haven't seen the inside of a school since "old God's time" (pardon the expression). What makes you an expert on what goes on in them?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Such as? Because I cant think of a thing.

I know, and I used to think the same way. The point is not just to stop being a religious society. The point is to move on to being a society in which a variety of philosophical sources and standpoints are valued for what they can add to society - and not valued for the stuff that they can't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats a pointless question, have you not been ready the thread, or my posts?

Of course it's not a pointless question. If it were, I wouldn't have asked it (you really need to lose that pejorative streak, it does you no good at all). You've fully explained what you want to achieve, but you haven't come anywhere near explaining what you want to repair. There is a saying that "if you have a hammer, you tend to assume that every problem is a nail". That's what you seem to be doing here, but my point is that maybe the problem isn't a nail. Consider this point to be an extension of my question above about your assumption that schools are to blame for the existence of Catholic "morons".

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what exactly is your evidence? besides you kids school friends who you apparently hang out with?

Hang out with a bunch of teenagers? Are you nuts? :eek:

All the same, it is a wise parent who keeps an ear to the ground, so we do our best. And three questions arise from that.

Firstly, is my "evidence" better than yours? Maybe. Maybe not. But at least it is based on listening to people who are currently going through the school system right now, rather than some abstract and theoretical view based on something you read someplace or something you might have experienced in your own school one can only guess how many years ago.

Secondly, if schools are so efficient at the indoctrination they practise, why is it that these couple of Catholic and Protestant secondary schools are teaching young people to be tolerant, open-minded, and pluralist in their views?

And thirdly, if those schools are managing to do this, how many other schools around the country are achieving the same thing?

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that a question or a statement? Assuming for a moment that it is a question (though one never knows for sure when someone starts a question with "So")

The question mark at the end not obvious enough for you ?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you say so. However, your lack of manners is very pertinent, for two reasons.

Firstly, if someone's argument is strongly founded, and if they are capable of sustaining that argument, then they don't need to resort to ill-mannered and pejorative remarks about those who don't agree with their argument. But you did resort to ill-mannered and pejorative remarks, which suggests either a weakness in your argument or a lack of capacity to sustain it on meeting an opposing view.

And if someone's argument is strongly founded, and if they are capable of sustaining that argument, then they shouldn't need to feign offense and reprimand others for manners when it has no baring on whether they are right or wrong. Its not bad manners to point out that people are morons for doing something, if its true. If you think that I'm wrong, explain how I'm wrong, don't just waste time and space whingeing about the way I put my points forward.

Deleted User wrote: »

Secondly, if one claims to want to promote pluralism, calling people "morons" because they have different views does not lend that claim any credibility. To put it a simpler way, "pluralism" does not mean "do it my way or else, you moron".

I dont think they are morons because they have differing views, I think they are morons because their views are objectively wrong. Their views are based on extreme ignorance of secularism means. But I haven't just said that point, I've backed it up this whole thread, so if you actually believe I'm wrong would you kindly cut this childish bull sh*t out and engage with the topic. You aren't fooling anyone with this emotive "you have bad manners" nonsense.

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought we were discussing pluralism, not card games.

That was f*cking pathetic. I mean seriously is that the best you can do? Or was that serious and you just aren't capable of understanding how empty your argument is.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, the Late Late again. I haven't seen the show, and maybe I should (though I suspect that it'll turn out to be a whole load of minutes of my life I'll never get back). But before I put in that time investment, here's a question for you. Would it be accurate or inaccurate to describe the people in the Late Late (the "morons", to use your terminology) as, for want of a better term, young?

The audience would tend to be older, but the posters who had the same reaction on the boards threads that came up from it would be relatively young.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're not exactly missing something. I think you've got something extra, to be honest. You jumped to a conclusion, and assumed that in describing the experiences of a number of young people in a number of schools I was extrapolating from that to assume that the same was true of all schools. I make no such claim - but for the purposes of this discussion I don't need to make such a claim.

You are a really bad liar: The RE my son encountered in his ET school seems to have been virtually indistinguishable from the RE his mates got in their Catholic schools, probably because the Government has specified what has to be in the RE curriculum in schools.
Your claim was exactly that the situation was for all (or most) schools, you even backed it up by saying that the government specifies course content in schools in general anyway. Whats worse (for you) is that you directly contradict this in a later post anyway:"There is some rule for primary schools that a certain amount of time each week has to be set aside for the religious ethos of the school patrons. My son's ET school used that time to teach his class a lot of what I'd call "comparative religion". He became a walking encyclopedia on the ins and outs of all sorts of faiths."
So not only were you making the claim that all ET and state schools have the same religious course content, you later described how this is actually the opposite of reality. ET schools have comparative religion, State schools have indoctrination (preparing for communion, confirmation etc).

Deleted User wrote: »

But are you sure that the knee jerk response to secularism arises from schools? Where is your evidence that it comes from schools and not from some other source? Or multiple sources?

I'm sure its from multiple sources, but school time is key. School time is when kids are at their most impressionable, and where its easiest to mindlessly drone in religious indoctrination. Educate a kid in an environment where, at best, they are never told how people have different religions or world views and thats ok, or at worst, they are told lies and misinformation about them and what do you think is the outcome?

Deleted User wrote: »

WADR, it looks as if you haven't seen the inside of a school since "old God's time" (pardon the expression). What makes you an expert on what goes on in them?

"old Gods time"? I'm 27, so with all due respect to your relationships with your childs school friends, I think I have a bit better handle on modern schools than you.

Deleted User wrote: »

I know, and I used to think the same way. The point is not just to stop being a religious society.

Seriously, what the hell are you on? I dont give a sh*t what society does, this a thread on secular states, its a thread on how public services should run. I dont care if everyone is catholic, atheist or f*cking klingon as long as the public services dont care and treat them all equally. Don't tell me that this far in the thread, with all you have written, that you didn't realise that? What are you doing?

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is to move on to being a society in which a variety of philosophical sources and standpoints are valued for what they can add to society - and not valued for the stuff that they can't.

I'm just going to ask - are you only pretending to be atheist? Are you? Because is some of the dumbest thinking I have ever seen and I have only come across that level of asininity from theists. If you only look at things in terms of their advantages the ALL you see is advantages and everything looks good. Sooner or later you will eat your own feet because of the advantages. Its only by weighing up the advantages and disadvantages (and by determining if those advantages can't be gotten more efficiently) that you can actually determine if something is worth keeping.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course it's not a pointless question. If it were, I wouldn't have asked it

That's a non sequitor.

Deleted User wrote: »

(you really need to lose that pejorative streak, it does you no good at all). You've fully explained what you want to achieve, but you haven't come anywhere near explaining what you want to repair. There is a saying that "if you have a hammer, you tend to assume that every problem is a nail". That's what you seem to be doing here, but my point is that maybe the problem isn't a nail. Consider this point to be an extension of my question above about your assumption that schools are to blame for the existence of Catholic "morons".

Did you even read the title of the thread? This is pathetic, I've gotten better trolling and misdirection from one of dead ones poems.

Deleted User wrote: »

Firstly, is my "evidence" better than yours? Maybe. Maybe not. But at least it is based on listening to people who are currently going through the school system right now, rather than some abstract and theoretical view based on something you read someplace or something you might have experienced in your own school one can only guess how many years ago.

Don't insult me, you know full well that I'm not basing my evidence on some abstract or theoretical view. My evidence is based on how a varied group of people (in terms of age and location) react to calls for secularisation in public services. And no, you dont get to discount boards out of hand, because it proves you wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

Secondly, if schools are so efficient at the indoctrination they practise, why is it that these couple of Catholic and Protestant secondary schools are teaching young people to be tolerant, open-minded, and pluralist in their views?

The young people are that way despite the schools indoctrination (assuming they are actually tolerant and open-minded, and not simply apathetic to any religious or political discussion you try to bring up with them).

Duggys Housemate

And if someone's argument is strongly founded, and if they are capable of sustaining that argument, then they shouldn't need to feign offense and reprimand others for manners when it has no baring on whether they are right or wrong.

Outside of the childish cabal of Modern atheists politeness is actually a pre-resiquite of most conversation, and most pubic debates. I doubt if you have the chomps to debate in public, but if you did you would have been removed by a chairman before now. Your opponents are "morons", everything is "f*ckin' this or "f*ckin;" that, you doubt your polite opponent is an atheist because only theists are that dumb ( an ad homimen by proxy and an insult to a group in one fell swoop).

Here's the thing though - and I say this as a 30 something atheist born into an agnostic family( in other words free thinkers when your family was probably Christian):

1) The modern atheist is of average, or below average intelligence. This wasn't the case 10 years ago, it is now because secularism is common. I doubt if the Jeremy Kyle show is full of the religious. You give a clear indication of being below average intelligence.
2) This is evidential from your clear inability to argue without insults, or to even understand the basic meaning of basic words, like pluralism, which is the exact opposite of why you think it means.
3) My hero of the 20th Century Richard Feynman would - although he was an atheist - never attack religious people as "morons", although compared to him they were. Civility and intelligence are related.
4) None of your replies make any sense whatsoever. Every single reply you make to Ulysses1874 comes in no way to answering his politely worded skewering of your arguments.

You don't do the cause any good, mate. But as I said when an argument becomes common, the common make the argument.

Dades

Clearly people can't keep civil here so rather than throw out cards I'm locking this disaster.