How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

recedite

CelticRambler wrote: »

... 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...

Firstly this is a false dichotomy. The secular measures are not discriminatory towards minority religions. The whole purpose of secularism is to protect minority religions and those of no religion from the dominant religion.

Secondly the far right are exploiting a conflict between multi-culturalism and the republic. This arises because not all cultures are compatible with the values enshrined in the French republic. That is not a conflict between democracy and the republic. You need to look more closely at what is happening.

This is a euro wide phenomenon, not just in France. Europeans increasingly find themselves in a situation where their liberal values are coming under threat, and the only people willing to defend these values are the far right.
The tragic death of this man in Sweden sums it up. I would guess that the man only ever voted for the most liberal party in Sweden, yet it was the implementation of their policies that led to his death.

When the victim found out that the two teenagers were alone and sleeping rough, he offered to help them with fresh clothes and a shower...
The prosecution claims the motive for the murder was the man's sexual orientation, and want to label the killing a hate crime...
'In addition to this being a hate crime, it is also a mindless assault and a beastly murder.
The teenagers have given contradictory evidence since their arrest in June, and the victim's long-term partner, who has lived with him 'for many years', says the 54-year-old had never shown an interest in dressing up as a woman. 'It is as if they dressed him up to mock him or something,' the partner said in a police interview.

Every election in every European country over the next few years will see substantial gains for the far right. Not because people have abandoned their liberal values, but because they want to protect them.

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

But in your last post you claimed there was no problem wearing Christian symbols such as a criucifix, and only Muslim symbols were banned. Now you are saying its a matter of being discreet. Headscarves for Muslim girls are not "discreet", they are an affront to a society that sees females as equals. There's nothing wrong with a bit of common sense discretion. But if there is a school that allows staff or pupils to wear discrete crucifix on a necklace, but does not allow a similarly discrete "hand of fatima" necklace then that would be religious discrimination. Let us know if you hear of it.

Similarly with pork in school canteens. Nobody is forcing Muslims to eat pork, and nobody is forcing vegetarians to eat it. If they don't want it, they can choose not to take it. Same as everybody else.

CelticRambler wrote: »

.. 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.

It seems your son is exhibiting the same bad attitude to equality as you yourself have been displaying. I wonder why you stay there among the despicable peasants and their ridiculous system? And you are wrong that Irish society doesn't give a damn a about equality. Franco is gone from Spain, so perhaps there is nowhere suitable left for you to go.

Hotblack Desiato

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

What on earth has any of that got to do with your claim that "Secularism is as much of a religious belief as any deity-oriented faith." ?

What a load of nonsense.

Samaris

CelticRambler wrote: »

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".

"Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries." - definition of secularism.

So...what on earth are you talking about?

looksee

politicians realising that either they support the principles of a secular state that offers no moral guidance

Where does the assumption come from that there can be no moral guidance in a secular state. Morality isn't the prerogative of religion, in fact in many cases it is seriously lacking. And using the Catholic church as an example of an institution providing moral guidance is laughable.

Samaris

looksee wrote: »

Where does the assumption come from that there can be no moral guidance in a secular state. Morality isn't the prerogative of religion, in fact in many cases it is seriously lacking. And using the Catholic church as an example of an institution providing moral guidance is laughable.

I suspect it's down to not having a very clearly defined front-and-centre view of moral issues in the same way that religion does. Religions define "good" and "bad" (in different ways, of course) based on their own rules. Secularism isn't particularly concerned with that (and nor should it be), it is down to wanting to separate Church and State. Secularism and morality aren't mutually exclusive, of course. Secularism and being -religious- aren't mutually exclusive either.

Secularism isn't about forcing an ideal, it's about removing religious ethos from state affairs. I suspect there's an awful lot of people that conflate secularism with atheism and figure that anyone wanting a secular state wants to enforce atheism as a new "national religion", which is nonsense. All it does is return religions (or lack thereof) back to the realm of peoples personal choice and private life.

looksee

Samaris wrote: »

Secularism isn't about forcing an ideal, it's about removing religious ethos from state affairs. I suspect there's an awful lot of people that conflate secularism with atheism and figure that anyone wanting a secular state wants to enforce atheism as a new "national religion", which is nonsense. All it does is return religions (or lack thereof) back to the realm of peoples personal choice and private life.

This is the point that has been made over the 17 pages of this thread and however many pages of other threads, and which various people consistently refuse to acknowledge. If it doesn't suit your agenda, ignore it.

xband

We actually primarily get our moral compass from a shared social outlook (which changes over time) and our legal framework, which is also constantly being tweaked to suit our current outlook.

Things like attitudes to human rights have actually evolved (mostly for the better) as Ireland has become less religious and more secular.

I'd argue that our national moral compass was set to vicious judgemental mode when we were at peak religiousity.

Ireland's extreme Christian past was fairly puritanical and did its best to exclude, lock up or otherwise make life miserable for anyone who didn't reach ira judgemental values.

I would rate secular, 21st century European countries as probably some of the most moral that gave ever existed. It's largely because we try to see points of view and are empathetic and aim to achieve a human-friendly, fair society with things like the redistribution of wealth, good public services, try to create equal opportunity and so on.

To argue that without a religious philosophy that wouldn't happen is nonsense and is highly probable as so by simple observation!

One eyed Jack

xband wrote: »

I would rate secular, 21st century European countries as probably some of the most moral that gave ever existed. It's largely because we try to see points of view and are empathetic and aim to achieve a human-friendly, fair society with things like the redistribution of wealth, good public services, try to create equal opportunity and so on.

Could you give one example of such a European country that exists?


(and when you say 'most moral', I'm assuming you mean humanitarian? Because 'most moral' makes no sense)


Finish your tea first though

recedite

France was mentioned already?

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

France was mentioned already?

France is definitely not representative of xband's Utopian idealism -

xband wrote: »

It's largely because we try to see points of view and are empathetic and aim to achieve a human-friendly, fair society with things like the redistribution of wealth, good public services, try to create equal opportunity and so on.

That sounds like France to you?

The reason I asked for an example of this European model of humanitarianism, political, economic and social equality and egalitarianism, etc, is because I was wondering how could that culture be mapped to Irish society to achieve the same results?

If France is what we're using as a yardstick to emulate a human-friendly, empathic, fair society with redistribution of wealth, good public services, the creation of equal opportunities where everyone tries to see everyone else's point of view and so on, then quite frankly, xband can keep it.

xband

You've a group of countries that chose to live by a charter of fundamental human rights, which enshrine all sorts of protections of individuals rights, minority rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, children's rights, rule of law, justice, democracy and ensuring that they are at least aiming to redistribute wealth through serious taxation, heavy welfare systems, health systems, public housing systems, free third level education and everything else that comes with being a Western European democracy in 2016.

We've even deemed it unacceptable to have the death penalty (something no religious state ever did because of its religiosity). Plenty of religious states and religious populations seem to feel it's 100% fine to have executions. We did in the past too, but we moved past that and thought about it and decided it was incompatible with how we see our society and voted it out of existence.

All of those rights are based around what is actually post enlightenment, humanist ideas of natural law and a desire to improve the lot of society as a whole. There was a massive move away from old ideas after WWII in particular and a real shock and re-think about how societies could improve things for everyone.

That's basically what all EU and most Western democracies stand for, even if they don't always get it absolutely right and if some are at different levels of development to others, there is a rather utopian goal there of creating an ever better society.

We keep measuring ourselves against benchmarks on all of these issues too : education, housing, poverty elimination, child welfare and so on and that does cause us to strive to be constantly better.

It's idealistic but, you're living it it.
It's why many of us have been to university, it's why many of us didn't starve when we lost a job or end up denied essential medical care. It's why we know the state isn't going to lock us up or murder us for not agreeing with it.

It has flaws here and there but, in general European democracies (and other similar countries) have tended toward more social solidarity, better standards of living, much better levels of equality and equal opportunity and those things have been quite separate to religion - actually in all cases they've been increasing as societies become less religious.

If you want to measure a society as moral : look at how it treats its poor, its sick, its criminals, what rights and opportunities does if give people? Does if stand up and protect those ? What does it strive to be? What are its ideals?

I think you'll find most EU countries stack up ectremely highly on all of those measures - human development index and similar scales all point towards that.

To me, that's the measure of morality. It's nothing to do with your religiosity, it's how you treat others, how you treat the world around you.

It's about thinking about the big picture and being empathetic really.

Give me boring old wishy-washy Euro-utopian idealistic stuff any day over some religious dictatorship that thinks its moral because it sticks to the rules of some ancient book and uses it to justify oppression, decapitation, brutality, murder and so on.

By any measure though, you are living in one of the most moral societies that has ever existed. It's constantly analysing itself too and looking at all of those areas about human rights, dignity, wealth distribution, housing standards, health, welfare etc etc

At no time in history has any society done more than this. So, to say that we need some kind of religious moral compass to know what's right and what's wrong is really just not fact.

One eyed Jack

xband wrote: »

It's about thinking about the big picture and being empathetic really.

While I hadn't lost the will to live while reading your post, interesting and all as it was, it didn't tell me anything I didn't know already, which is why I asked you to name just one European country where all these things exist already. It wasn't a loaded question, it wasn't a trick question, it was a straightforward question and I was looking for a straightforward answer. None appears to be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, back to reality in Ireland...

xband

One eyed Jack wrote: »

While I hadn't lost the will to live while reading your post, interesting and all as it was, it didn't tell me anything I didn't know already, which is why I asked you to name just one European country where all these things exist already. It wasn't a loaded question, it wasn't a trick question, it was a straightforward question and I was looking for a straightforward answer. None appears to be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, back to reality in Ireland...

Countries which currently top the European development index which would give you an idea of 'reality' in Ireland.

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Switzerland
4. Denmark
5. Netherlands
6. Germany & Ireland

What I said is all of those countries (and more so looking at Europe) strive towards and put vast amounts of resources in terms of massive % of their GDP into achieving those goals.

They're not all perfect, but they are all highly moral in the sense that they are aiming and largely succeeding in making people's lives better and protecting rights.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

You've a group of countries that chose to live by a charter of fundamental human rights, which enshrine all sorts of protections of individuals rights, minority rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, children's rights, rule of law, justice, democracy and ensuring that they are at least aiming to redistribute wealth through serious taxation, heavy welfare systems, health systems, public housing systems, free third level education and everything else that comes with being a Western European democracy in 2016.

We've even deemed it unacceptable to have the death penalty (something no religious state ever did because of its religiosity). Plenty of religious states and religious populations seem to feel it's 100% fine to have executions. We did in the past too, but we moved past that and thought about it and decided it was incompatible with how we see our society and voted it out of existence.

All of those rights are based around what is actually post enlightenment, humanist ideas of natural law and a desire to improve the lot of society as a whole. There was a massive move away from old ideas after WWII in particular and a real shock and re-think about how societies could improve things for everyone.

That's basically what all EU and most Western democracies stand for, even if they don't always get it absolutely right and if some are at different levels of development to others, there is a rather utopian goal there of creating an ever better society.

We keep measuring ourselves against benchmarks on all of these issues too : education, housing, poverty elimination, child welfare and so on and that does cause us to strive to be constantly better.

It's idealistic but, you're living it it.
It's why many of us have been to university, it's why many of us didn't starve when we lost a job or end up denied essential medical care. It's why we know the state isn't going to lock us up or murder us for not agreeing with it.

It has flaws here and there but, in general European democracies (and other similar countries) have tended toward more social solidarity, better standards of living, much better levels of equality and equal opportunity and those things have been quite separate to religion - actually in all cases they've been increasing as societies become less religious.

If you want to measure a society as moral : look at how it treats its poor, its sick, its criminals, what rights and opportunities does if give people? Does if stand up and protect those ? What does it strive to be? What are its ideals?

I think you'll find most EU countries stack up ectremely highly on all of those measures - human development index and similar scales all point towards that.

To me, that's the measure of morality. It's nothing to do with your religiosity, it's how you treat others, how you treat the world around you.

It's about thinking about the big picture and being empathetic really.

Give me boring old wishy-washy Euro-utopian idealistic stuff any day over some religious dictatorship that thinks its moral because it sticks to the rules of some ancient book and uses it to justify oppression, decapitation, brutality, murder and so on.

By any measure though, you are living in one of the most moral societies that has ever existed. It's constantly analysing itself too and looking at all of those areas about human rights, dignity, wealth distribution, housing standards, health, welfare etc etc

At no time in history has any society done more than this. So, to say that we need some kind of religious moral compass to know what's right and what's wrong is really just not fact.

you sound very aggressive on the big state which I cant see as being an ethical goal in and of itself. A lot of European countries have horrendous deficits and large debts. it would seem to be more prudent to have states that dont accumulate large debt instead of being ethically obliged to keep everyone in comfort all the time regardless of the cost. At the end of the day you have to balance issues like moral hazard where people, banks and government have no financial responsibility against people's right to enjoy the fruits of their labour and not simply be viewed as taxpayers to be milked as required.

Absolam

xband wrote: »

I would rate secular, 21st century European countries as probably some of the most moral that gave ever existed. It's largely because we try to see points of view and are empathetic and aim to achieve a human-friendly, fair society with things like the redistribution of wealth, good public services, try to create equal opportunity and so on.

I suspect that's because you are a product of the same conditions that have created secular, 21st century European countries though. A 17th Century Puritan would probably rate them as some of the least moral that have ever existed; morality isn't terribly objective. All you're really saying is you're largely in step with your peers. Just as the Puritan was, or the denizens of Ireland's extreme Christian past were.

xband

Absolam wrote: »

I suspect that's because you are a product of the same conditions that have created secular, 21st century European countries though. A 17th Century Puritan would probably rate them as some of the least moral that have ever existed; morality isn't terribly objective. All you're really saying is you're largely in step with your peers. Just as the Puritan was, or the denizens of Ireland's extreme Christian past were.

Other than we're not generally burning witches, hanging people off prison walls, carrying out public executions, flogging people, imposing preposterous jail sentences, refusing to allow women to participate in democracy, operating a rigid class system, accepting rule by family lines of absolute dictators, accepting ethnic cleansing, slavery etc etc .

All of those things and plenty more were common for 17th century puritanical societies and even far later.

Public execution for example was still practiced in France for example into the early 1900s.
Or if you look at the US, standards of morality around and attitudes to executio, incarceration and crime and punishment are way out of step with almost all other developed countries and more like what you'd see in late 19th century Europe in many respects.

If you're basing your measure of a society on how it treats people, then no those weren't very pleasant societies and had a rather twisted view of morality that was about social conformance and obeying arbitrary rules. They were mostly brutal, authoritarian and puritanical societies, many of which resemble what we're seeing still in existence in various theocratic regimes in the Middle East or authoritarian regimes, even as extreme as North Korea.

There has been a major change in how we think about morality but also about social justice, human rights and protection of individual freedoms.

Many of those concepts didn't exist in the past and don't exist for a lot of people around the world.

xband

silverharp wrote: »

you sound very aggressive on the big state which I cant see as being an ethical goal in and of itself. A lot of European countries have horrendous deficits and large debts. it would seem to be more prudent to have states that dont accumulate large debt instead of being ethically obliged to keep everyone in comfort all the time regardless of the cost. At the end of the day you have to balance issues like moral hazard where people, banks and government have no financial responsibility against people's right to enjoy the fruits of their labour and not simply be viewed as taxpayers to be milked as required.

You could argue that, but similar arguments were made in 19th century Britain and those extreme views of economics gave you some very extreme poverty and deep divides in a very wealthy country.

Should famine have happened in what was, at that time, probably the world's wealthiest nation ?
Was that ever moral? Even by what those societies professed as Christian moral values ?

The Victorians were all about moral hazard taken to the extreme.

Absolam

xband wrote: »

Other than we're not generally burning witches, hanging people off prison walls, carrying out public executions, flogging people, imposing preposterous jail sentences, refusing to allow women to participate in democracy, operating a rigid class system, accepting rule by family lines of absolute dictators, accepting ethnic cleansing, slavery etc etc . All of those things and plenty more were common for 17th century puritanical societies and even far later. Public execution for example was still practiced in France for example into the early 1900s. Or if you look at the US, standards of morality around and attitudes to executio, incarceration and crime and punishment are way out of step with almost all other developed countries and more like what you'd see in late 19th century Europe in many respects.

Sure we're (well, some of us) not; many people don't think such things are moral. The point is that many did consider them moral at the time; morality is not objective.

xband wrote: »

If you're basing your measure of a society on how it treats people, then no those weren't very pleasant societies and had a rather twisted view of morality that was about social conformance and obeying arbitrary rules.

I'm not sure their view of morality was necessarily about social conformance and obeying arbitrary rules, but I do think your characterisation of 'twisted' only illustrates that their morality simply wasn't the same as your own. I'm sure some of the more judgemental amongst them would have found your own moral views twisted too. Again... it's not objective.

xband wrote: »

There has been a major change in how we think about morality but also about social justice, human rights and protection of individual freedoms. Many of those concepts didn't exist in the past and don't exist for a lot of people around the world.

There are always major changes in how we think about morality; societies change. Give it a century or two and I doubt anyone will think the moral views of the 21st century are any less quaint, antiquated, or barbarous than you think those of a couple of centuries ago are. Let's not imagine we've stumbled on the pinnacle of morality simply by being in this particular Space and Time.

xband

Did I say pinnacle?
Nope, I didn't!

What I said was that as a society we have moved to a position where we are being empathetic, spending time analysing ourselves from the point of view of human rights and driving towards constantly improving those.

I never claimed that this is as good as it gets.

There's a LOT wrong, mostly things like profiting from and benefiting from miserable labour conditions in the developing world, propping up despotic regimes because it suits the economy - oil, cheap manufacturing etc etc and in the case of certain major supposedly liberal countries -waging various crazy wars and engaging in wholesale torture here and there and being hugely hypocritical about that. (Mostly applicable to the one remaining Cold War super power..)

All I'm saying is that the majority of post WWII social democracies (the US being fairly out of line with that) get a hell of a lot of things very right and achieve levels of quality of life, personal freedoms, human rights etc that are basically unprecedented.

They're doing that based on an open, secular philosophy, not a religious one.

All I'm trying to say is that the notion that religiousity and morality are the same thing is absolute nonsense.

The majority of our moral values are societal and those things transcend religious beliefs and absolutely need to in a secular society.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

You could argue that, but similar arguments were made in 19th century Britain and those extreme views of economics gave you some very extreme poverty and deep divides in a very wealthy country.

Should famine have happened in what was, at that time, probably the world's wealthiest nation ?
Was that ever moral? Even by what those societies professed as Christian moral values ?

The Victorians were all about moral hazard taken to the extreme.

I havnt suggested people should be allowed to starve however there seems to be a generational war going on where younger people have to contribute upwards disproportionately because everyone else is obliged to have a particular standard of living. And again alot of western countries are much nearer bankruptsy compared to a generation or 2 ago.

One eyed Jack

xband wrote: »

All I'm saying is that the majority of post WWII social democracies (the US being fairly out of line with that) get a hell of a lot of things very right and achieve levels of quality of life, personal freedoms, human rights etc that are basically unprecedented.

They're doing that based on an open, secular philosophy, not a religious one.

Moral relativism gives me indigestion.

Remind me again where your two friends relocated because they figured that country was a better choice for them than "backwards Ireland" (which, even according to your own league table, we're punching well above our weight in terms of social equality and fairness!).

The US, wasn't it?

All I'm trying to say is that the notion that religiousity and morality are the same thing is absolute nonsense.

Religion is a set of moral standards. There are other systems of moral standards such as the legal system, so suggesting that religion and morality are the same thing is not nonsense, because religion informs morality. You have a different standard which informs your morality. The prevailing social morality is another concept again. You would be correct if you had said that religion isn't necessary to inform social morality.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends upon whom you ask. It suits you, it doesn't suit everyone, so your claims of fairness and a human-friendly society are at best merely subjective.

The majority of our moral values are societal and those things transcend religious beliefs and absolutely need to in a secular society.

Except if you're a country of over 300 million people apparently, but the US is an outlier of course... :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Moral relativism gives me indigestion.

Quite a number of people find such simple concepts overly complex. Which is likely one of the many reasons why the religious among us merely wholesale a morality and call it "Objective" and then invent a god to rubber stamp the whole package.

Back here in reality however morality shows no signs of being objective, at all, and is very much contextual and relative. So I can do little more to help you myself than recommend Gaviscon which I have found to be the most effective brand myself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion is a set of moral standards. There are other systems of moral standards such as the legal system

Not really. Religion would seem to be more of a packaging and distribution method for moral standards, rather than being moral standards itself. I certainly have yet to be shown religion adding anything to the topic of morality. Rather it hampers it in many ways, makes vastly unsubstantiated fantastical claims about morality (such as it being objective and unchanging and so forth) and is a packaging and distribution method that comes with great cost to us as a species.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so suggesting that religion and morality are the same thing is not nonsense, because religion informs morality.

Again not that I have seen. Rather people make up their own morality and then use different methods to justify, distribute, or argue for their brand of it. I would defend my moral views with science and rationality and arguments, evidence, data and reasoning for example. While many of the religious would do so by saying nothing more than effectively "My imaginary friend is all powerful, and agrees with the moral view I have presented, so accept it or else".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have a different standard which informs your morality.

Not convinced that is true either. I think the vast majority of our species has essentially the same standards for informing morality. Which is why the religious and non-religious come to, mostly, the same moral conclusions about everything from rape to murder to charity and more.

What we appear to have is a different standard for how to argue for, defend, and perpetuate our morality. Again I, and many people on this area of the forum, do so with argument, evidence, data and reasoning. Many of the religious however do so by little more than declaration by fiat, and the assertion that the standard they perpetuate is objective and unchanging and rubber stamped by the creator of the universe. A being that none of them, least of all you, has substantiated the existence of in even the tiniest way.

looksee

Religion is a set of moral standards[/QUOTE

How do you work that out?

CelticRambler

xband wrote: »

Overall I'm worried France is heading towards a total mess.

...

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.

Not heading towards, France is in a total mess! :pac:

I agree with you that Ireland is "largely centrist and sensible on most issues" ... but how can you then say that "we are building a situation where people are being excluded" ? By definition, a centrist state is going to be more accommodating than one that leans left or right. If you accept that, then Ireland has become the successful, welcoming society it is with the educational system that has been in place for decades.

The system you want to replace.

OK, let's look at your other examples:

xband wrote: »

Countries which currently top the European development index which would give you an idea of 'reality' in Ireland.

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Switzerland
4. Denmark
5. Netherlands
6. Germany & Ireland

What I said is all of those countries (and more so looking at Europe) strive towards and put vast amounts of resources in terms of massive % of their GDP into achieving those goals.

They're not all perfect, but they are all highly moral in the sense that they are aiming and largely succeeding in making people's lives better and protecting rights.

1. Norway - compulsory Protestant/Lutheran RE, or opt for Catholicism, or opt for alternative faith
2. Australia - church and state on equal footing, compulsory Catholic RE, or opt for alternative faith
3. Switzerland - compulsory RE according to local canton (except Geneva & Neuchatel
4. Denmark - non-confessional RE in both primary and secondary schools
5. Netherlands - strong presence of faith schools, with non-Christian immigrants over represented in secular state schools
6. Germany - compulsory RE (Protestant/Catholic according to region)
& Ireland ....

Samaris wrote: »

Secularism isn't about forcing an ideal, it's about removing religious ethos from state affairs.

And what is the State? It's the sum of its parts, the people who make it up and vote for their parliamentarians. And if those people have a religious ethos, it's inevitable that their state will too.

Secularism is about forcing an ideal - the notion that religious ethos doesn't matter when it does for the majority of voters. They might only pay lip-service, but 87% still tick that box on the census when they could tick another.

As I said before, when you remove something, you cannot leave a vacuum. Lowest common denominator equality based on a list of rather vague human rights does not work - we're seeing the effect of this all over Europe as regions within larger states disassociate themselves from the "common morality" and redefine a set of values that are, inevitably, discriminatory.

xband

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Moral relativism gives me indigestion.

Remind me again where your two friends relocated because they figured that country was a better choice for them than "backwards Ireland" (which, even according to your own league table, we're punching well above our weight in terms of social equality and fairness!).

The US, wasn't it

They opted not to locate to Ireland due to lack of modern, normal schools which are something one takes for granted in the US and most countries these days.

Anyway, I'm wasting my breath / fingers even having this debate. We don't agree on anything and aren't very likely to.

You can't see any issue whatsoever with having an almost 100% mono religious school system with in built evangelisation and barriers to access to "non believers" in an otherwise developed, largely secular, progressive democracy.

The US has major issues with death penalties, gun crime and waging wars etc but, it does a fine job of providing public, accessible, secular primary and secondary education and many other things and ranks pretty high on the HDI itself.

It is better at integrating a diverse population than we are.

Can you imagine moving to the UK for example and being told "Oh, that's lovely. You're Catholic? Well when our school has accommodated all the Church of England children, if there are any spaces left, we'll ring you!"

"also, your child can colour in while we're singing All Things Bright and Beautiful" several times a day.

"And would you mind if once in a while, we take your son/daughter to church? If you do, just collect them at 11:30am and get them back by 1:30"

My guess is there would be uproar and Irish Catholics, justifiably, claiming they were being discriminated against and treated like second class citizens.

Put the shoe on the other foot however and any request to open the Irish public system is treated by some as an attack on the catholic faith and you immediately get this victim crapology about how Catholics (in holy Catholic, blasphemy law, abortion banning, prayers in the parliament, constitution that looks like a mass booklet, Ireland where they run 93%+ of public schools) are being oppressed by the liberal media, militant atheists and so on ...

silverharp

Celtic, the balancing item are the ethics passed on by parents . in the past they could refer to Christianity and in the past a lot of it would have made sense as they were mostly packaged up ethics which were necessary for a primitive society to continue anyway.
Now ethics need to be based on how the world works now not something frozen in time 2000 years ago. It's not that difficult to tease out "codes of behaviour" which aid people getting on in life. Do a b or c and it will cost you socially or damage your health for x y and z and it will benefit you socially etc.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quite a number of people find such simple concepts overly complex. Which is likely one of the many reasons why the religious among us merely wholesale a morality and call it "Objective" and then invent a god to rubber stamp the whole package.

Back here in reality however morality shows no signs of being objective, at all, and is very much contextual and relative. So I can do little more to help you myself than recommend Gaviscon which I have found to be the most effective brand myself.

We're in agreement on this point then, because I went to great lengths to point out to xband that morality is subjective.

+1 for Gaviscon too, worked a treat.

Not really. Religion would seem to be more of a packaging and distribution method for moral standards, rather than being moral standards itself. I certainly have yet to be shown religion adding anything to the topic of morality. Rather it hampers it in many ways, makes vastly unsubstantiated fantastical claims about morality (such as it being objective and unchanging and so forth) and is a packaging and distribution method that comes with great cost to us as a species.

Well, that would be your subjective opinion on religion which are moral standards applied to and shared by a society, Sharia law for instance, they don't lick it off the stones - it's a set of moral standards shared by a society and they seem to do alright. There's plenty I don't agree with, but I'm not going to impose my moral standards on someone who lives in another society. I'd have to deal with quite a bit more than indigestion then.

Again not that I have seen. Rather people make up their own morality and then use different methods to justify, distribute, or argue for their brand of it. I would defend my moral views with science and rationality and arguments, evidence, data and reasoning for example. While many of the religious would do so by saying nothing more than effectively "My imaginary friend is all powerful, and agrees with the moral view I have presented, so accept it or else".

So different people have different standards which inform their morality. We seem to be in agreement again.

Not convinced that is true either. I think the vast majority of our species has essentially the same standards for informing morality. Which is why the religious and non-religious come to, mostly, the same moral conclusions about everything from rape to murder to charity and more.

Clearly, if one were to regard us as a whole species, it's quite obvious that moral standards differ across the globe. I think I need take another gulp of Gaviscon before I can swallow any subjective opinion which suggests the vast majority of our species has the same standards for informing morality.

What we appear to have is a different standard for how to argue for, defend, and perpetuate our morality. Again I, and many people on this area of the forum, do so with argument, evidence, data and reasoning. Many of the religious however do so by little more than declaration by fiat, and the assertion that the standard they perpetuate is objective and unchanging and rubber stamped by the creator of the universe. A being that none of them, least of all you, has substantiated the existence of in even the tiniest way.

And if I were ever to introduce the existence of a creator into an argument, you might have a point, but why you expect me to provide evidence for other people's claims is asking a bit much tbh.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We're in agreement on this point then, because I went to great lengths to point out to xband that morality is subjective.

You will notice I did not stop at subjective though, I mentioned also contextual and relative. So whatever your indigestion issue is, I am not clear. Nor, would it seem, are you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, that would be your subjective opinion on religion which are moral standards applied to and shared by a society

Nothing subjective about what I said. It is a fact, not a subjective opinion when I said for example "I certainly have yet to be shown religion adding anything to the topic of morality." because the fact is I have yet to be shown religion adding anything to the topic of morality. Least of all by you.

And it is also not a subjective opinion but a fact that religion hampers the discourse on morality. Why? Because very often they refer back to bronze aged texts on the subject of morality and declare it to be an objective eternal moral standard. So while morality SHOULD be updating itself to fit with modernity, and modern demands upon it.... we have that discourse being hampered by those who want to anchor morality back in a bronze aged era of an illiterate and relatively ignorant peasantry.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sharia law for instance, they don't lick it off the stones - it's a set of moral standards shared by a society and they seem to do alright. There's plenty I don't agree with, but I'm not going to impose my moral standards on someone who lives in another society.

Actually one of the modern issues with Sharia is that they are attempting to implement it in our societ(ies). Because they feel in many cases that the law of their religion is above the law of the land they live in. And the UK is the most oft cited example of this with the UK Police having common issues with attempting to deal with internal Sharia enthusiasts imposing their own brands of justice and law above and separate to UK law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So different people have different standards which inform their morality. We seem to be in agreement again.

Except that was not the part I was disagreeing with so you appear to be so desperate to manufacture agreement that you are doing so merely by ignoring the points that were actually being made, rebutted, or both.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Clearly, if one were to regard us as a whole species, it's quite obvious that moral standards differ across the globe. I think I need take another gulp of Gaviscon before I can swallow any subjective opinion which suggests the vast majority of our species has the same standards for informing morality.

Moral standards differ sure, I do not see anyone here, least of all me, suggesting otherwise. What I do suggest however is they do not differ that greatly on a vast array of subjects such as murder, rape, theft and more.

You can gulp whatever drugs you feel you need to to understand basic points, but the basic point remains that we DO have common standards for informing our morality. And those standards are our shared human condition. Our need for food, our aversion to pain, our biological love of family and children, the list goes on. This IS the shared standards that inform our morality that just about all of us have, and there is nothing subjective about it despite your seemingly ongoing fetishism for applying the world to all and sundry.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if I were ever to introduce the existence of a creator into an argument, you might have a point, but why you expect me to provide evidence for other people's claims is asking a bit much tbh.

Which would be relevant if I had asked you to. Which I did not actually do. I merely pointed out that it has not been done by those perpetuating religion based moral systems, or those claiming that religion has somehow informed or benefited morality in some way. So do try and keep up with what I am actually saying when pretending to reply to it.

nozzferrahhtoo

CelticRambler wrote: »

Secularism is about forcing an ideal - the notion that religious ethos doesn't matter when it does for the majority of voters.

That is not the form of secularism I subscribe to I must say. For me you have not described secularism at all. For me secularism is about the ideal that things like religion and individuality and culture and tradition and all of those things do matter. And matter greatly.

But it is also about the ideal that those things have a time and a place. And the ideal that a modern pluralist society should strive towards, even if we never attain, that we find ways to facilitate all.

Although I do not spend much time following the words of President Obama, I have to say that his keynote speech many years ago said it better than I:

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.

I may be opposed to 'X' for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why 'X' violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You will notice I did not stop at subjective though, I mentioned also contextual and relative. So whatever your indigestion issue is, I am not clear. Nor, would it seem, are you.

Which is why I said we were largely in agreement, because I agree with you that morality is indeed contextual and relative, whereas xband appeared to be under the impression that morality was objective.

Nothing subjective about what I said. It is a fact, not a subjective opinion when I said for example "I certainly have yet to be shown religion adding anything to the topic of morality." because the fact is I have yet to be shown religion adding anything to the topic of morality. Least of all by you.

Clearly, religion throughout history has added to morality. Whether it's addition has been a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion. That's a separate question though.

And it is also not a subjective opinion but a fact that religion hampers the discourse on morality. Why? Because very often they refer back to bronze aged texts on the subject of morality and declare it to be an objective eternal moral standard. So while morality SHOULD be updating itself to fit with modernity, and modern demands upon it.... we have that discourse being hampered by those who want to anchor morality back in a bronze aged era of an illiterate and relatively ignorant peasantry.

So their subjective opinion on morality, doesn't jig with your subjective opinion on morality, and both of you would claim that your individual standards of morality are objective. With what I would see as your vastly superior intellect, I would have thought it would be easy for you to present a compelling argument as to why your morality would be better for society than that of a bronze aged era of illiterate and relatively ignorant peasantry. I would say the discourse is hampered by your lack of a compelling argument tbh.

Actually one of the modern issues with Sharia is that they are attempting to implement it in our societ(ies). Because they feel in many cases that the law of their religion is above the law of the land they live in. And the UK is the most oft cited example of this with the UK Police having common issues with attempting to deal with internal Sharia enthusiasts imposing their own brands of justice and law above and separate to UK law.

One is always going to find confrontation when they try to impose their morality on others. However if we are to work towards a fairer and more inclusive society, then we have to accommodate people who's morality is different from our own, because we can't claim to be a fair nor human-friendly society when we seek to exclude people because their morality differs from our own. In the UK they are seeking to ring-fence off people whose morality they don't agree with, and this is supposed to lead to a more inclusive society how exactly?

Except that was not the part I was disagreeing with so you appear to be so desperate to manufacture agreement that you are doing so merely by ignoring the points that were actually being made, rebutted, or both.

I don't feel any need to manufacture agreement with your points - I simply either agree with you or I don't, and when I don't, I will address those points I disagree with.

Moral standards differ sure, I do not see anyone here, least of all me, suggesting otherwise. What I do suggest however is they do not differ that greatly on a vast array of subjects such as murder, rape, theft and more.

Of course they do, because people commit murder, rape, theft and more in any society you'd care to mention. Why? Because their moral standards differ greatly from other people's moral standards.

You can gulp whatever drugs you feel you need to to understand basic points, but the basic point remains that we DO have common standards for informing our morality. And those standards are our shared human condition. Our need for food, our aversion to pain, our biological love of family and children, the list goes on. This IS the shared standards that inform our morality that just about all of us have, and there is nothing subjective about it despite your seemingly ongoing fetishism for applying the world to all and sundry.

Our what? Sounds like a standard that informs your morality, that you assume is shared by others.

Which would be relevant if I had asked you to. Which I did not actually do. I merely pointed out that it has not been done by those perpetuating religion based moral systems, or those claiming that religion has somehow informed or benefited morality in some way. So do try and keep up with what I am actually saying when pretending to reply to it.

You implied that at some point I had argued the existence of a creator in one of our many conversations, when you said "least of all by you". I think you need to stop pretending I've ever made arguments or claims that I have never made, simply because you find it easier to argue against a narrative you have constructed in your own mind.