Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How to achieve secular schools/educational equality
Options
Comments
-
There is a blind spot for many teachers in Ireland when it comes to religion. Byhookorbycrook has posted about the school they teach in, and says that even though the school is catholic this isn't really an issue and the school is inclusive. How can a school under the patronage of a faith which, like many other faiths, thinks it alone has the path to salvation and those not of that faith are going to suffer for this in the afterlife be genuinely inclusive? The local school to us claims to be 'inclusive' and I've had teachers I know who work there tell me all about how 'inclusive' their classrooms are, but when asked about how children like mine will be accommodated during prayers, trips to church, priests' visits and sacrament prep they suddenly need to tell me it is a catholic school after all and most parents don't have any problem with the system. Does it not occur to many teachers to ask why their employment is subject to religious rules when the state is the one that pays them?0
-
Lazygal : they're just hoping you'll go away. Maybe emigrate or move to a city where they've special schools and other institutions for people like us.
Or better yet, you'll give up and baptise your children and be "normal" like everyone else.
From anything other than an Irish perspective this is passive-aggressive, institutionalised, state evangelisation.
Irish people don't notice because, like someone with Stockholm Syndrome, they're familiar with the system, have no perspective other than the Irish one and don't realise how screwed up it is.
Also almost all those involved in teaching and education at primary and secondary are products of that system. (Primary teachers especially)
So it's hardly surprising there's so much inertia.
Honestly xband, it's like you're writing from the 1950's. What's with the 'people like us' nonsense? You're not any different to many people I know who would like to see a secular education system. I'm beginning to wonder do people understand the concept of secularism and it's relevance to a multicultural society. Here's a clue - it's not just about you, as France is beginning to find out -
Old Tradition of Secularism Clashes With France’s New Reality
Nothing passive about the aggressive way in which the French Government are pushing institutionalised secularism in the very same manner as you might term "State Evangelisation".
I've recently been thinking a lot lately about a quote from John Steinbeck, the author of the book "Of Mice and Men" -
“In every bit of honest writing in the world, there is a base theme. Try to understand men, if you understand each other you will be kind to each other. KNOWING A MAN WELL NEVER LEADS TO HATE and nearly always leads to love. There are shorter means, many of them. There is writing promoting social change, writing punishing injustice, writing in celebration of heroism, but always that base theme. TRY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER!”
It's completely contradictory to your "them and us" separatist mentality, which seems to be completely focused on people understanding you, while you appear to be languishing under the misguided perception that you have no part to play in trying to understand other people or show them understanding, instead assuming that everyone else in Ireland must be experiencing Stockholm Syndrome because they don't agree with your point of view. If anyone is experiencing a lack of perspective here...
I don't want anyone to go anywhere. I shouldn't have to reiterate again that I would like to see people who identify as atheist or non-religious or another religion would be accommodated by the State with regards to the education of their children. They shouldn't have to place their children in schools where they do not support the ethos of the school. That's not telling them to go anywhere, that's telling them that they're aiming at the wrong bloody target. People who identify as religious are not your damned enemy!
As for your assertion that "almost all those involved in teaching and education at primary and secondary are products of that system", have you any idea really how many of those Principals, teachers, administrators and civil servants work tirelessly towards achieving equality in education? I really don't think you do, or you wouldn't come out with a statement like that as though everyone wants you just to go away. It's utter nonsense, and it's insulting to those of us who at least are trying to work towards the society you claim to want, but still see yourself as an outsider. It doesn't come from State level through a trickle-down effect, it comes from community level, from the ground up!0 -
Talk to me when 97% of schools aren't treating people like me as "them".
The above is just head in sand nonsense!
Every day Irish citizens are facing "oh well we'll give your child a place once all the normal (Catholic) children have been accommodated.
Every day children have to deal with deliberately awkward opt out messes where they're sitting in the back of the classroom colouring or whatever.
Every day schools have to deal with rules that look like something from the 19th century, making it impossible to create even accommodating never mind secular environments.
Until that changes, my points remain very valid.
The situation in Ireland has been criticised at international level and is completely at odds with international norms.
We don't have a secular education system or anything even approaching one. It's a privately operated, mostly catholic, state funded system with de facto compulsory attendance and very little in the way of alternative a available to most people.
Are you saying that Irish teachers aren't a product of a highly religious system?
Did they suddenly somehow go off to the new secular teaching academy?
Sorry, but you are defending the indefensible here
Working tirelessly towards something in a deeply flawed system doesn't make that system acceptable in a modern, supposedly secular, multi faith, multi ethnic, republic where we're all supposedly equal.
I'm sure many teachers, principals, civil servants, administrators and others working towards inclusiveness must be absolutely frustrated by the utterly archaic system they're stuck in the middle of. They're clearly not speaking out loudly enough to effect change.0 -
I don't mean this as a slight on Irish teachers but when you consider an Irish primary teachers typical education:
Religious primary school- 8 years
Religious secondary school - 6 years
Religious teacher training college - 3 to 4 years.
Religious employer - up to 43 years or so.
Basically they are one step away from being as religiously trained as clergy or nuns.
Then they might decide to get into politics...Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
They're clearly not speaking out loudly enough to effect change.
They don't dare to. And we're back to "ethos" again, with many employees of the State actually sh1t scared of standing against the Catholic church and ever again getting a full-time postion/going up for advancement if they do. No word of a lie. One of my teacher friends I referred to in the last post was actually a regional chairperson of the INTO. I asked her would she ever bring this up, but no she wouldn't (and I get why not). As mentioned previously, they in fairness do have more to be battling with in terms of SNA's and resource hours, etc. I would never begrudge them tackling these first and ethos later, but by their own admission, they can't tackle ethos at all. Whoever stands up first is on their own. This is the "No-Go" area that so many are avoiding at union level. They feel they have good reason to avoid it.
0 -
Advertisement
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »It doesn't come from State level through a trickle-down effect, it comes from community level, from the ground up!
No, that's not true. It's a double edged sword, where both the community and the "employer" (the church) find it in their best interests to keep the threat of "ethos" hanging over the heads of the employees. Although the community isn't aware of this threat for the most part, but clearly want the school to teach faith formation to save themselves from having to.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »They're not forced into any classroom. Their parents make a decision not to opt for one of the alternatives, all of which are permitted by the state (and more easily accessible/implemented in Ireland than in many other countries).
For a brief moment earlier today, I thought this thread had got back onto looksee's "how?" track, which is/would be a really interesting discussion. Unfortunately, it's gone off the rails again into an argument about religion/indoctrination/faith/whatever. I've never met anyone go on about religion so much as an internet atheist - even the Jehovah's Witnesses have more normal conversations! :rolleyes:
I was going to respond to some of the more calmly-made assertions (quite a few of which I agree with in one way or another) but it all seems rather pointless if the only reason is to feed the anti-religion intolerants.
My point is, Keep it out of the schools. I'm not anti religious. If Catholics want to practice their faith at church or at home, it's their freedom to do so.
I'm 100% for freedom of religion, but it also must include freedom from religion.0 -
The trade unions were crucial to the introduction of the smoking ban in Ireland - once it was pointed out that their members were working in unsafe environments, and statistically likely to be leading to the deaths of a small number of their members each year. The unions could have a similarly crucial role in removing discrimination from Irish schools if it could be shown, for example, that school policies are prejudiced against the kids of atheist teachers.I would never begrudge them tackling these first and ethos later, but by their own admission, they can't tackle ethos at all. Whoever stands up first is on their own. This is the "No-Go" area that so many are avoiding at union level. They feel they have good reason to avoid it.0 -
Talk to me when 97% of schools aren't treating people like me as "them".
I understand that you hate posts being multiquoted and all the rest, but you make a couple of points and I think each one is worth addressing. I'll do my best to keep it brief.
First of all, I can talk freely to you because 97% of schools aren't treating you as "them", a more accurate figure would be 3% of schools treat you as "them". You're just not that special.The above is just head in sand nonsense!
No no, this is an example of head in the sand nonsense -Trump4Prez wrote: »My point is, Keep it out of the schools. I'm not anti religious. If Catholics want to practice their faith at church or at home, it's their freedom to do so.
I'm 100% for freedom of religion, but it also must include freedom from religion.
How can anyone be 100% freedom of religion, yet call for the exclusion of religion from schools with a religious ethos? Who is anyone to say that Catholics should not be able to send their children to schools with a Catholic ethos? Expecting people would just cowtow to such nonsense when 92% of National Schools in Ireland are Catholic ethos schools, as if Catholic ethos schools are going anywhere, is just head in the sand nonsense. I would use the more polite term "wishful thinking" though.Every day Irish citizens are facing "oh well we'll give your child a place once all the normal (Catholic) children have been accommodated.
They're not actually, they only face that in August, when schools are deciding on the numbers of students they can accommodate. The greater barrier is actually the sibling rule, not the religious criteria, and that affects 20% of those applying for a school place. It's also mostly confined to the greater Dublin area.Every day children have to deal with deliberately awkward opt out messes where they're sitting in the back of the classroom colouring or whatever.
Schools have limited resources, and are granted limited resources by the DES, depending on the number of children in the school, which determines the number of teachers provisioned to the school and the number of learning support staff and so on. There are never enough. Again, those children of parents who are non-religious are just not that special, and the school has to try and treat every student fairly, and try to accommodate all the students, and can only allocate resources accordingly. Any awkwardness isn't deliberate, it's unfortunate, but that's due to the lack of resources within the school to accommodate the parents who do not want their children to participate in religion classes.Every day schools have to deal with rules that look like something from the 19th century, making it impossible to create even accommodating never mind secular environments.
Clearly you haven't read up on many of the modern policies, action plans and circulars issued by the DES to accommodate equality, and equality of opportunities for all students in schools. I don't understand what you mean by a 'secular environment' in a religious ethos school? Unless you mean a non-religious environment in a religious ethos school? How do you propose that could work?Until that changes, my points remain very valid.
Your point is completely invalid as you have consistently failed to address the current reality of the education system in Ireland, instead proclaiming the way things should be according to the word of xband (I've heard of 'tyranny of the majority' bandied around here often enough, but 'tyranny of the minority'? Nope, that's not going to happen!).The situation in Ireland has been criticised at international level and is completely at odds with international norms.
I noticed that you skipped deftly (or just purposely outright avoided) the article I linked to about the current position of secularism in France? Our education system is not at all at odds with international norms -
Religious education
Religious education in primary and secondary education
You appear to want a system that's closer to China and India. No thanks, quite frankly.We don't have a secular education system or anything even approaching one. It's a privately operated, mostly catholic, state funded system with de facto compulsory attendance and very little in the way of alternative a available to most people.
It's not compulsory for parents to enroll their children any school -
This is the full text of Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland:
"42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
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.
In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."Are you saying that Irish teachers aren't a product of a highly religious system?
Did they suddenly somehow go off to the new secular teaching academy?
Not in the way you were trying to make out, no -The teacher: ‘On our staff, two out of 20 teachers are Mass-goers’
Cian is a primary-school teacher in Dublin who describes himself as “100 per cent atheist”. He prepares children for their confirmation every year
“I bring the sixth-class boys to Mass for an hour once a week. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: most of them don’t go to Mass on Sunday at all, so they need to be familiar with it for confirmation. Parents love communions and confirmation and the sense of occasion.
“Occasionally I do the evening prayer, but I wouldn’t bother with a morning prayer. I might do one religion class a week, or I might not; I do the bare minimum, but a bit more around Catholic Schools Week, Christmas and Easter.
“I’m lucky in that we have board-of-management chair who is good with the kids and somewhat modern in his understanding of how not everyone is religious. We also have a great pastoral worker who does fantastic work with the kids. But other schools are a lot more religious and have teachers who are atheist.
“The sex education in this school is very conservative. It’s all about marriage, and the external speaker has blanked questions about gay people. It’s insulting to the kids, as they’re more world-wise than I would have been at that age.
“The untold story, for me, is the teachers. We have a very young teacher population. Any analysis will show them as less religious than their parents, or not religious at all, so you have 90 per cent of schools as Catholic and teachers like me who are merely presumed to be Catholic and comfortable teaching religion.
“On our staff, I believe that about two out of 20 teachers are Mass-goers and about four or five are not religious at all. This is common in schools across Ireland; there are hundreds, if not thousands, of teachers like me.
“It’s unreasonable to expect teachers like me simply to go to Educate Together. One of the reasons I wanted to teach was to work in schools within areas of disadvantage; these are almost all Catholic. I love teaching. But nobody’s gaining from this.”
Source: Non-Catholic in a Catholic school, Irish Times article.Sorry, but you are defending the indefensible here
No, defending the indefensible would be suggesting that schools with a religious ethos should not be allowed to teach faith formation as part of that religious ethos. Defending the indefensible would be suggesting that a teacher like the one above should keep their job when they have no interest in doing their job properly.Working tirelessly towards something in a deeply flawed system doesn't make that system acceptable in a modern, supposedly secular, multi faith, multi ethnic, republic where we're all supposedly equal.
Where are you getting the idea that we supposedly live in a secular republic? Have you seen the preamble to the Irish Constitution lately?
"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."I'm sure many teachers, principals, civil servants, administrators and others working towards inclusiveness must be absolutely frustrated by the utterly archaic system they're stuck in the middle of. They're clearly not speaking out loudly enough to effect change.
They're effecting change every day, not just for the 3% that identify as atheist or non-religious, but for the other 97% that identify as religious. They work to effect change on numerous grounds to promote equality and equality of opportunities for 100% of students. The reason as Shrap pointed out that many educators aren't speaking out about religion is because they don't want to risk their jobs, which is a choice they made, not one they were forced to make. They chose to become teachers, it wasn't something that was forced upon them. Many more people are concerned with other areas of education where they see inequalities that need addressing.
They simply have different priorities to yours is all. If you were able to make a compelling argument to prioritise secular education, then you might see change happen faster.0 -
I think you have just made a very compelling argument for secular education OEJ.0
-
Advertisement
-
Secularism and its relevance and/or compatibility with a multicultural society is indeed an interesting question. Some cultures just aren't secular by nature. Islam has its Sharia law, which has a whole raft of instructions relating to civil matters; from rules about lending money to the punishment of gays, apostates and adulterers. Is it possible for somebody steeped in Islamic culture to separate their religion from civil matters? Certainly it is a lot more difficult than it is for a Christian, where "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is the tradition which always acknowledged some separation of church and state.One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm beginning to wonder do people understand the concept of secularism and it's relevance to a multicultural society. Here's a clue - it's not just about you, as France is beginning to find out -
Old Tradition of Secularism Clashes With France’s New Reality
Nothing passive about the aggressive way in which the French Government are pushing institutionalised secularism in the very same manner as you might term "State Evangelisation".
Compare France to the USA which also has separation of church and state in its constitution, and also has secular schools. They don't have the same problem because they never had multiculturalism. Yes, they welcomed immigrants of all races and all cultures, but in the big melting pot they were all boiled done to one culture; American. Schoolkids must learn the language, salute the flag every morning and sing the national anthem.
There is no option in the USA to attend a public school where a foreign culture prevails, such as we have allowed in the Islamic schools in Dublin.
France is fighting hard at the moment to keep its secularism. I support that, and I reject the sentiments expressed in your link above as dangerous, defeatist nonsense. Especially this bit;
Secularism is not a religion, any more than liberty, equality or fraternity are religions. These are principles. Voltaire is as relevant now as he ever was.Voltaire wrote that religion was on a diminishing road, but it has returned with a vengeance, said Dominique Moïsi, a French political scientist. “Laïcité has become the first religion of the Republic, and it requires obedience and belief,” Mr. Moïsi said. “But I care more for democracy than for the republic,” he said. “To play Voltaire in the 21st century is irresponsible.”
According to the link, Muslims now "make up close to 8 percent of the population and making up the largest number of regular worshipers".
It should be of no concern to the state which religion makes up the largest number of regular worshipers. But when that cohort starts to demand the dismantling of certain principles upon which the state is founded, that is another matter, and it cannot be tolerated. There is no conflict of interest now in France between democracy and the republic. That is "a false dichotomy" which M. Moisi has thrown in there for dramatic effect.
If it got to the stage where a majority called for implementation of Sharia Law, then that conflict would arise.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I understand that you hate posts being multiquoted and all the rest...
I agree with this bit.
The rest of it is so long I basically lost all will to live about 30 lines in, so I decided to go have a cup of tea instead.0 -
France is fighting hard at the moment to keep its secularism. I support that, and I reject the sentiments expressed in your link above as dangerous, defeatist nonsense. Especially this bit;Secularism is not a religion, any more than liberty, equality or fraternity are religions. These are principles. Voltaire is as relevant now as he ever was.
According to the link, Muslims now "make up close to 8 percent of the population and making up the largest number of regular worshipers".
It should be of no concern to the state which religion makes up the largest number of regular worshipers. But when that cohort starts to demand the dismantling of certain principles upon which the state is founded, that is another matter, and it cannot be tolerated. There is no conflict of interest now in France between democracy and the republic. That is "a false dichotomy" which M. Moisi has thrown in there for dramatic effect.
If it got to the stage where a majority called for implementation of Sharia Law, then that conflict would arise.
Okay, that's enough to get me back! :pac: There is, at the moment, a huge conflict of interest in France between democracy and the République and it's values of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" - ask anyone who voted for the Front National, a party that makes no secret of the fact that its policies and candidates are strongly "Christian" - one of the leading candidate in the recent elections included a meet with the Pope in her campaign material. The party received 35-40% of the national vote - a figure that has been rising by about 5% points per year for the last decade - but because France does not have proportional representation, it does not gain seats to match its support.
That figure of 8% is imaginary. The fact is that official France is so aggressively "secular" that even asking someone what religion they adhere to (e.g. on a census form) is prohibited ... so no-one really knows how much of the population is muslim. That's the lowest estimate I've ever seen - it's usually put at around 10-12% with a suspicion of being possibly up to 15%.
And this is where the article is correct and you are wrong: real France - i.e. the ordinary people - is predominantly Catholic and is exactly as described in the article. The support "secular" education and "secluar" institutions and "égalité" only insofar as that doesn't mean treating muslims as equals. Even protestants get a rough time, and Jews are certainly considered fair game for a bit of discrimination. Vegetarians are tolerated (as long as they don't complain about having just a little bit of meat in their meal).
People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith. Which is why, if you want to see schools free from faith-based education, you've got to leave all the discussion about religion out and concentrate on the benefits of an educational programme where it just "isn't there".0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith. Which is why, if you want to see schools free from faith-based education, you've got to leave all the discussion about religion out and concentrate on the benefits of an educational programme where it just "isn't there".
No, people are superstitious and to avoid conflict about which particular superstitions are observed and which can be ignored, all superstition is left to individuals and the state does not observe any of them. After all it really doesn't matter whether you are or are not willing to walk under a ladder when you are creating legislation about, say, public services.
It is not superstitious to not recognise or consider superstitions, any more than secularism is a religion.
Benefits of a religion-free education system include:
All children are educated on an equal and inclusive basis.
They mix with, and therefore learn to trust other people of different backgrounds.
Their learning is factual. What they are taught is best actual knowledge on any subject.
They can be taught morality without the threat of supernatural retribution.
What they learn at school does not conflict with what they learn at home.
Significant amounts of time can be given over to other subjects.
They will have the opportunity to learn about different religions, beliefs and cultures; currently this would - even with the best intentions - conflict with teaching about one particular religion.
Currently a school does not have to have a Board of Management (though most do); it is the decision of the Patron whether there is one. Where there is one, it would give the parents on the board a more realistic role in managing the school; at the moment their role is somewhat illusory as the Chairperson is the Patron's appointment and is the person who deals with the department of education. They can, and I have seen this happen from while I was on a board of management, present a request or proposal from the board in a way that favours the Patron, even though that decision might have nothing to do with ethos, and goes against the views of the board.
It allows primary teachers to be employed in all state schools without them having to perjure themselves on the subject of their religious beliefs, and removes the need for parents to baptise their children for totally pragmatic reasons.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith.
If you think that, either you don't know what secularism is, or you don't know what religion is.
That's OK. Most Irish people don't really know what secularism is, and fall for the lie constantly peddled by the RCC that it is irreligion and/or anti-religion.Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »And this is where the article is correct and you are wrong: real France - i.e. the ordinary people - is predominantly Catholic and is exactly as described in the article. The support "secular" education and "secluar" institutions and "égalité" only insofar as that doesn't mean treating muslims as equals. Even protestants get a rough time, and Jews are certainly considered fair game for a bit of discrimination. Vegetarians are tolerated (as long as they don't complain about having just a little bit of meat in their meal).
People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith. Which is why, if you want to see schools free from faith-based education, you've got to leave all the discussion about religion out and concentrate on the benefits of an educational programme where it just "isn't there".
can you be catholic and religious and be atheist at the same time? its only a poll but elsewhere it seems like mass attendance in France is around 5%?
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
Can you explain what exactly this conflict entails?CelticRambler wrote: »There is, at the moment, a huge conflict of interest in France between democracy and the République and it's values of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" - ask anyone who voted for the Front National.....
You gave an example of a smaller party being disadvantaged by the "first past the post" electoral system. Same thing happens in UK and USA. This is an argument in favour of proportional representation as a voting system. Another refinement is the list system. But the finer points of the electoral system are nothing to do with any alleged "conflict between democracy and the republic".
People can be as religious as they like in a secular state.CelticRambler wrote: »People are religious, and no amount of state-imposed secularism will stamp that out. Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith.
In the USA, which has a strict separation between church and state, people are generally more religious than they are here. Secularism in a state protects minority religions and their followers from being disadvantaged.0 -
Benefits of a religion-free education system include:
All children are educated on an equal and inclusive basis.
Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.
This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.
And it just so happens that - in "secular" societies - the schools run by priests and nuns are amongst the best, most sought-after establishments.
Separation of church and state - how complicated do you want to make it?Hotblack Desiato wrote: »If you think that, either you don't know what secularism is, or you don't know what religion is.
The problem arises when a nation's culture is profoundly influenced by the belief system of the people who developed it, but some of its citizens decide that they no longer adhere to those beliefs and seek to have that part of their society's culture set aside. On paper, that's reasonable, but you cannot simply remove a belief system from society and leave nothing in its place, because those with a belief system are and will always be more motivated to fill the gap.
Which leads to ...
... politicians realising that either they support the principles of a secular state that offers no moral guidance, and lose support to the party that says "We're proud to be Catholic (and will save you from the invading Muslims)" or they start reinforcing "secular" measures that are inherently discriminatory towards the non-Catholic electorate.Can you explain what exactly this conflict entails?
You gave an example of a smaller party being disadvantaged by the "first past the post" electoral system. Same thing happens in UK and USA. This is an argument in favour of proportional representation as a voting system. Another refinement is the list system. But the finer points of the electoral system are nothing to do with any alleged "conflict between democracy and the republic".
People can be as religious as they like in a secular state.
Banning the wearing of the veil in France was an unequivocal anti-Muslim measure - teachers were and still are perfectly free to wear crucifixes in the classroom.
In the summer (i.e. in the run up to the elections) a decision was made on "secular" grounds to not offer an opt-out on eating pig-meat in school cantines because that would be "catering to religious preferences". This was a huge story here for about three weeks, until the "migrant crisis" steamrolled the objectors into submission.
We've just had the annual "crib in the Place de la République" debate, about which - for a change - there wasn't any debate: since the elections, France has become a resolutely Christian country in all but name. No politician from either of the traditional parties will push too hard for "laïcité" because the Front National are taking their votes on a platform that includes good old-fashioned Catholic values - and that's without the endorsement of the Catholic Church.
So here you have a country that (literally) chased the religious orders out of their schools, convents and monasteries 110 years ago, nationalised all of their assets, and instituted secular education for everyone, yet in 2016 religion and politics are as entwined as ever. How on earth is that likely to turn out any different in Ireland by setting up a few more schools where there's no catechism class?0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.
This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.
You asked for an argument for secular schools that did not involve 'harping on about religion'. On my very first point - which makes absolutely no reference to religion - you claim that it is not valid because parents do not want it.
Would you like to make your mind up about what the ground rules are for this discussion?
And would you like to offer some actual evidence for your confident statement about what 'the majority' of parents want? Before the marriage referendum the 'religious' argument was that 'the majority of people' would not want to recognise same sex marriage. Right.
If your argument is that parents do not want an education system that offers equality of any sort to children, then that is a different argument, but I feel you really need to look at the integrity of Irish parents, including the RC parents that you are apparently speaking for. I think you will find they are of a rather more generous and public spirited nature than you suggest.
Nowhere in my points did I mention an 'Irish context' or discuss any 'evils of the Catholic church'. My reference to the BoMs of primary schools referred to the authority of the Patron, not necessarily a Catholic patron.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.
This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.
And it just so happens that - in "secular" societies - the schools run by priests and nuns are amongst the best, most sought-after establishments.
Separation of church and state - how complicated do you want to make it?
The problem arises when a nation's culture is profoundly influenced by the belief system of the people who developed it, but some of its citizens decide that they no longer adhere to those beliefs and seek to have that part of their society's culture set aside. On paper, that's reasonable, but you cannot simply remove a belief system from society and leave nothing in its place, because those with a belief system are and will always be more motivated to fill the gap.
Which leads to ...
... politicians realising that either they support the principles of a secular state that offers no moral guidance, and lose support to the party that says "We're proud to be Catholic (and will save you from the invading Muslims)" or they start reinforcing "secular" measures that are inherently discriminatory towards the non-Catholic electorate.
Banning the wearing of the veil in France was an unequivocal anti-Muslim measure - teachers were and still are perfectly free to wear crucifixes in the classroom.
In the summer (i.e. in the run up to the elections) a decision was made on "secular" grounds to not offer an opt-out on eating pig-meat in school cantines because that would be "catering to religious preferences". This was a huge story here for about three weeks, until the "migrant crisis" steamrolled the objectors into submission.
We've just had the annual "crib in the Place de la République" debate, about which - for a change - there wasn't any debate: since the elections, France has become a resolutely Christian country in all but name. No politician from either of the traditional parties will push too hard for "laïcité" because the Front National are taking their votes on a platform that includes good old-fashioned Catholic values - and that's without the endorsement of the Catholic Church.
So here you have a country that (literally) chased the religious orders out of their schools, convents and monasteries 110 years ago, nationalised all of their assets, and instituted secular education for everyone, yet in 2016 religion and politics are as entwined as ever. How on earth is that likely to turn out any different in Ireland by setting up a few more schools where there's no catechism class?
You're factually incorrect there.
The law does not specify anything in particular at all.
It's:
loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics.
The law does not mention any particular symbol, and applies to : Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs
It bans overt religious symbols in public schools and makes absolutely no exemptions for Christian symbols.
The problem is that unlikely for Christians, some Muslims and Sikhs etc see religious dress as a fundamental part of their religion, so it does impact them more dramatically.
One of my cousins was sent home for wearing a tshirt with a huge cross on the front for example. So it's far from just targeted at Muslims.
There's a lot of hijacking of this by both the extreme right (FN) and religious groups seeking to be offended by it.
The main issue in France is that they've republican values of separation of religion and state that go back to the revolution. They're considered a very fundamental part of what France is and they're being used by both sides as a tool of stirring things up.
Legally speaking, they don't blur those lines and that's causing major conflict with religious groups who want to insert religion into the state and have it recognised or protected from being criticised or questioned using blasphemy laws and so on.
For the most part at least France has a clear idea of what secularism is and is prepared to stand by that. It's a very key part of the founding principles of modern, post revolutionary France though. Religion is considered a private matter.
The ethnic community conflicts are largely a throw back to France's colonial past in Algeria, Morocco and elsewhere. There's a major issue with the aftermath of that both in terms of how people who moved to France were treated and also how they identify as French when France was their old colonial occupier yet, they live there and are French.
Then you've got a xenophobic, right wing movement in France which isn't particularly pleasant either and you've radicalised religious minorities who are equally scary.
It's *lot* more conflicted and complicated than just relgious issues.
If anything, lack of a secular school system in France probably would have made things even worse by entrenching ghettoisation even further than it already is.
School is one of the places where communities at least get to interact and meet on an equal footing.
France hasn't a great history of incorporating difference though. They've a history of attempting to erase regional languages, particularly German after WWII with policies banning it in schools in Alsace etc
Breton and Basque were never given much attention either and the old French languages like Occitane were actively just erased as non standard weird languages that were an anachronistic thing that might divide the nation.
It's quite a different culture to Britian and very much about everyone getting behind a notion of la Republique as a single national identity.
You have to remember tho, historically France is all about revolution and a cultural mythology that would be about being bad ass rebels who stuck it to the establishment, ditched the monarchy, championed rational thought and freedom of thinking and put the church in its place.
That's where it conflicts with radical Islam and *any* attempt to blur the line between public education and religion .
Ireland's system has no such radical new way of thinking. It's just been a conservative, highly Catholic version of the British system with few tweaks here and there.0 -
Advertisement
-
You asked for an argument for secular schools that did not involve 'harping on about religion'. On my very first point - which makes absolutely no reference to religion - you claim that it is not valid because parents do not want it.
I maintain (based on the fierce competition for places in Dublin schools, with parents putting their children's names down within weeks of the child being born) that Irish parents are not interested in educational equality. They want the best place for their child, and religions doesn't come into it.
If you're looking for inconsistencies, you have it in this quest for "equality" where - in the context of this thread - you're asking how children can be educated in an environment that is even more fragmented than it is now. It's been acknowledged that, for the most part, "there's no choice" - put your child in a "religious" school or none at all. That's equality in action: the parents have no choice, and neither do the schools - everyone ends up in the same classroom, regardless of their parents' beliefs.You're factually incorrect there.
The law does not specify anything in particular at all.
It's:
loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics.
The law does not mention any particular symbol, and applies to : Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), Sikh (turban, signs) Jewish and other religions' signs
It bans overt religious symbols in public schools and makes absolutely no exemptions for Christian symbols.
I'm confused now. You say I'm factually incorrect, then quote the law that proves I know what I'm talking about (I live with it!). Yes, on paper, all expressions of religious affiliation are forbidden in school; but no, chances are you'll never have any trouble if you discretely display your Catholicism.For the most part at least France has a clear idea of what secularism is and is prepared to stand by that. It's a very key part of the founding principles of modern, post revolutionary France though. Religion is considered a private matter.
...
It's *lot* more conflicted and complicated than just relgious issues.
If anything, lack of a secular school system in France probably would have made things even worse by entrenching ghettoisation even further than it already is.
School is one of the places where communities at least get to interact and meet on an equal footing.
How much direct experience do you have of the so-called egalitarian French educational system? Because I can tell you that they are anything but places of "equal footing" ... especially if you're the wrong colour or have a name like Mohammed.
Yes, it's a lot more complicated than just religion, but Ireland is not just a Catholic tweaked version of Britain. By all means look for a new educational model for a 21st Century Ireland, but leave the anti-religion propoganda out of the campaign.
Oh, and beware of faraway hills looking greener. My eldest son had a taster term in Ireland, arranged in his cousin's school (which happened also to be my old school) - and part of the CBS network. The biggest difference he noticed between his long French school day (8am - 6pm and his short Irish day (9.30am - 3.30pm) was "we're doing stuff all the time!" You can complain about 45 minutes a week being wasted on RE, but that pales into insignificance compared to the hours and hours wasted on bad management - a persistent problem in France's state/secular schools.
And FWIW, even though he decided to stick with the French system until the equivalent of Leaving Cert, he's now studying in Dublin, the reason being that he'd had enough of mixing with "ignorant peasants" who knew that the guarantee of "égalité" meant they'd get a place in third level as long as they were perfectly average. That's an attitude that permeates every aspect of French society too (except politics and sport) - which is why the economy here is being hammered by countries (including Ireland) who couldn't give a damn about equality. :pac:0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »I maintain (based on the fierce competition for places in Dublin schools, with parents putting their children's names down within weeks of the child being born) that Irish parents are not interested in educational equality. They want the best place for their child, and religions doesn't come into it.
If you're looking for inconsistencies, you have it in this quest for "equality" where - in the context of this thread - you're asking how children can be educated in an environment that is even more fragmented than it is now. It's been acknowledged that, for the most part, "there's no choice" - put your child in a "religious" school or none at all. That's equality in action: the parents have no choice, and neither do the schools - everyone ends up in the same classroom, regardless of their parents' beliefs.
That argument is just irrational. I cannot argue with it as it does not make sense.
Using the inadequacies of the French system to prove that secular schooling does not work is hardly an argument either. If anything it gives us a basis of what to avoid.0 -
There's the law and then there's the application of the law.
As I said, France has issues with extremism on both sides of the fence.
It's feck all to do with secularism though when it does go wrong, rather it's just any old excuse to be anti-immigrant in a lot of cases.
The headscarf ban was quite blatantly an attempt to ensure FN didn't get too many votes and a populist and very divisive move a few years ago.l by the mainstream parties.
Also France's anti hate speech laws can stray into extreme censorship on the other side of it and in some ways seem to make the situation even more tense.
Overall I'm worried France is heading towards a total mess. The vicious protests around gay marriage there a few years ago show me a very ugly, violent and narrow minded right wing that's growing rapidly and on the otherside you've dangerous radicalised extremists of the Islamic variety. You've also got various scary bits on the far left in France too. They're no angles at the extreme side.
I had to experience the centre of Nantes being utterly trashed by rampaging anarchists a few years ago.
The reason for all this isn't secularism, it's right wing conservative racism on one side and religious extremism on the other.
I lived in France and I've seen institutional racism first hand. Mostly North African colleague of mine getting randomly stopped all over the place (long before the recent Paris massacre too).
You can see how it would drive people into ghetto mentalities.
Thankfully, Ireland is largely centrist and sensible on most issues.
My concern with the schools though is we are building a situation up where people are being excluded and made feel very unwelcome in what's a very important part of social life and formation.
We urgently need a lot more open and inclusive schools.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »I maintain (based on the fierce competition for places in Dublin schools, with parents putting their children's names down within weeks of the child being born) that Irish parents are not interested in educational equality. They want the best place for their child, and religions doesn't come into it.
It is a lack of equality that lead us to put our children's names down for the local ET school at a very young age. Given that all other schools allocate places on the basis of religion in categories one, two and in some cases three and up to eight, we don't have equal access to school places. If we picked the best school in the area it would be the closest catholic school that I attended myself which has a brilliant reputation. The fierce competition I've seen is nothing to do with getting into the 'best' school. It's usually about getting into any school and, to a lesser extent, getting into a school that doesn't carry out indoctrination.0 -
-
-
It's an iPhone typo0
-
I was arguing for equal and inclusive and you said it could not be done (the inference being that therefore we should give up trying).0
-
-
Advertisement
-
I said:All children are educated on an equal and inclusive basis.
and you replied: (to which I have already responded)CelticRambler wrote: »Straight away, that's where the argument falls down. The majority of parents sending their children to school do not want equality for their children, and - if you look at where it is already in place - secular education does nothing to counteract the discrimination applied to children for all kinds of socio-economic reasons.
This is why constantly harping on about religion and the "Irish context" and all the evils of the Catholic church is the worst possible way to promote non-denominational education. Whatever social problems exist in the society outside the school walls will continue inside, regardless of whether the school is run by priests, nuns, card-carrying communists or purple-haired monkeys.
You did go off on a straw man argument in which you seemed to suggest that there was no point changing the schools because external factors also created discrimination (ie unequal and excluding). But we can change what can be changed, and removing the discrimination from schools is a good start.0
Advertisement