Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

looksee

From the D of E website:

While the State provides for free primary education, schools are established by patron bodies who define the ethos of the school and appoint the board of management to run the school on a day to day basis.
The vast majority (96%) of primary schools in Ireland are owned and under the patronage of religious denominations and approximately 90% of these schools are owned and under the patronage of the Catholic Church.
- See more at: http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Diversity-of-Patronage/#sthash.P96NqkJb.dpuf

This quote from the above quoted link:

The fact that 96 percent of primary schools in Ireland are under denominational
patronage is unique among developed countries. The reasons for this are deeply
rooted in history and in the belief system of the population. With the establishment of
the National (Primary) School system in 1831 the State provided financial support to
local patrons for primary school provision, on the condition that patrons observed the
regulations of the newly established Commissioners of National Education. While
the State favoured applications from patrons of mixed denominations, what evolved,
in practice, was that the great majority of schools came under the patronage of
individual clergymen of different denominations.
At that time, and for several generations afterwards, the vast majority of Irish people
were affiliated to denominational churches, mainly to the Catholic Church. From the
beginning, regulations sought to prevent proselytism, through the national schools,
and efforts were to be made to protect the belief system of pupils who did not share
the religious belief of the majority in the school they attended.

Also from the same document

In early nineteenth century Ireland, against a background of intense denominational
animosity and political division, the education of the young became a significant
political issue. The traditional hegemony of the Established Church was being
challenged by a demand for the equal acceptance of the rights of all citizens to a statesupported
education, in accordance with their religious affiliations. A landmark
effort to establish this position was the Fourteenth Report of the Commissioners of
the Board of Education, 1812, which sought to devise a schooling system that would
include all children to receive the benefits of education, “as one undivided today,
under one and the same system, and in the same establishments.” It set out the
fundamental principle which should underpin such a scheme – “that no attempt shall
be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sector or
description of Christians”6
. This daring stance, against a prevailing climate of
proselytism, was adopted by Lord Stanley in 1831 for the national school system.
Announcing a state-supported primary school system, Stanley stated that a main aim
of the system was to unite the children of different denominations, with the schools
being open for combined literary and moral instruction for four or five days a week,
while separate denominations’ religious instruction could take place at times outside
of these days. The new Commissioners of National Education were to assist local
initiative in the provision of schooling, and applications from mixed denominational
local groups were to be especially favoured. Predictably, however, the churches
opposed a mixed denominational system, and long and bitter struggles took place to
re-shape it to being a denominational one. While the system remained de jure a
mixed system, it became de facto a denominational one. As Akenson notes, “By
approximately mid-century, the national school system had become a denominational
system”.7
Pressures to make it more overtly denominational continued throughout
the nineteenth century.
Shortly after the establishment of the national school system the Commissioners of
National Education set up two central teacher training establishments, one for men
and one for women, at their Dublin headquarters. These were to be managed by the
Commissioners on the mixed education (religious) principle. The same provisions
were to hold for a range of regional model schools, set up during the mid century.
These had an apprenticeship training role (monitorial) for aspiring teachers. The
mixed education principle was not regarded as satisfactory by the main religious
denominational leaders. From 1860, the Catholic hierarchy, in particular, strongly
opposed the Commissioners’ institutions. Eventually, in 1884, following much
agitation, the State agreed to give financial support to denominational training
colleges which increased in number and expanded in size over subsequent years.
This support was a significant concession to the denominational emphasis in primary
education.
In a pastoral letter, issued in 1900, the Catholic hierarchy formally acknowledged the
success in remodelling the national school system from the original plan, stating:
The system of National Education … has itself undergone a radical
change, and in a great part of Ireland is now, in fact, whatever it is in
name, as denominational almost as we could desire. In most of its
schools there is no mixed education whatsoever.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

From the D of E website:


This quote from the above quoted link:


Also from the same document

It's like history repeating itself as though society has learned nothing from our past. As I've always maintained though - it isn't religion that is divisive, it is people that use religion to further their own underlying political ideology, that creates and furthers division in society. It's actually become a field of scientific study in academics -


Political Science of Religion

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

From the D of E website:
This quote from the above quoted link:
Also from the same document

Cool, lots of stuff we've seen before there, but I think the significant thing you're pointing out is there is absolutely nothing there to suggest that the State used Deeds of Trust to hand ownership of State property to the religious orders? So we can safely move on from that notion...

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply see no need to expand on it when your arguments appear to me at least, to have no apparent grounding in reality.

Except you have simply never shown that to be true. This is just another one of your cop out moves where you declare something to be irrelevant, wrong, illogical or nonsense.... but do not in any way show how or why. As such it is comical that you replied to what I said about you never backing anything up.... by giving a prime and perfect example of it. Thanks for that. Talk about making my point for me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply cannot relate to your ideas at all, in any way, shape or form whatsoever unfortunately.

I have seen no reason to think you have even tried. You basically do not appear to address, let alone rebut or reply to, my positions on most things here.

All I have said so far is that religion is divisive and I see no arguments, least of all from you, that the best way forward is to have.... for example..... a state school system and curriculum that is at all levels blind to race, creed, religion and sex.

Despite all the words you have used, your entire rebuttal to this boils down to nothing more than "I want it, therefore we should have it". And if that is the level of thinking you can bring to the issue, it is no surprise you can not "relate to" anything else.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It just reads very contradictory to me is all.

And yet you can not and have not SHOWN any such thing in it. So.... as per usual yet again.... you merely assert something to be so and then leave it hanging without any substance or substantiation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're saying one thing one minute, and the next you're saying you're not saying the thing you appear to have said

I have done no such thing anywhere, ever. Perhaps YOUR understanding is failing and I APPEAR to you to be saying one thing one minute, and another thing the next. But that is your failing not mine. But AGAIN you do not give any substance or examples here. You merely assert it and run. So I can not even directly correct your errors here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's quite difficult then to follow what you are actually saying!

For you. I am not seeing anyone else having this issue though when I speak on this subject. Not just on this thread, but across MANY MANY threads on numerous websites.

So I think I can genuinely without reservation say "It is not me, it's you" in this case.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that would only be a determination made by you that ideas are being used or expressed in the wrong time or place

The sky is blue and grass is green. Oh sorry we are NOT playing the "State the blatantly obvious" game? Then why are you doing it? Who's determination do you EXPECT me to be presenting except my own? I am giving my position on the matter WITH the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning behind it. I have never once pretended otherwise, so neither should you.

Unlike you I do not generally engage with assertion and retreat. I have told you the places I think religion does not belong but I have also given numerous reasons WHY I think that. Cop out lines like "Well that is just your opinion/determinations" say nothing and do nothing save to make it look like you are replying without requiring you to say anything of any actual substance or relevance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and in a school with a Catholic ethos, those ideas are being used or expressed in the right time and place!

Oh do keep up would you? I never clearly, numerous times now, said I have NO ISSUE with that AT ALL. That is of course the "right time and place". The points I am making is that the state and state funding should have nothing to do with school of that sort. I have not once said schools of that sort should not exist, or be doing exactly what you describe.

Seriously, you complain you can not follow what I am saying, yet you insist on pretending not to understand the absolute basic foundations of what I keep repeating to you over and over again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where we appear to disagree is where religion belongs.

Clearly. The basis of that disagreement is not so clear however as I have given you quite a number of arguments as to WHY I think it does not belong where I tell you it does not belong. In response I get little more than "I want it there, so it should be there" nonsense.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to want to restrict religion to Churches and schools where the ethos of the school is religious, but I would disagree with such restrictions.

On what basis though? At this stage you have asserted the above so many times I benefit not from having it asserted again. I am still waiting patiently to hear WHY you think this way not THAT you do.

I will summarize my position ONCE AGAIN for you and maybe this time you can be explicit about where the disagreement lies.

The ideal I argue for is

1) a country with a state funded school system, offering a curriculum that is entirely secular and free from a religious ethos, that is presented and taught in a way that is secular and free from a religious ethos. The admissions to it would be blind to race, creed, sex and religion. And it would be compulsory.

2) Further education in anything outside that curriculum, be it religious or otherwise, or presented with an ethos or otherwise, would be then entirely optional, addmissions to it could discriminate as they please, and it would not be funded by the state in any way that differs from how people getting state funding usually do so for their club or hobby. I have given the example before of the fishing club I am part of which gets grants from the state, and from bodies like the national lottery.

And I have yet to hear a single argument from you as to what is wrong with the above proposal, or how the above does NOT address the concerns you have expressed related to having no religious ethos in the school education system etc etc.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am of the opinion that nobody should be restricted from expressing their faith

Then you will be overjoyed to find that nothing I have proposed requires restricting people from expressing their faith. So overjoyed in fact that you hopefully will find yourself, as I do frequently, wondering why you even keep bring this up other than to provide filler to flesh out the size, if not quality, of your responses.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that same token, all I have distilled from your posts on the topic is "There is no good reason to have religion in our halls of power"

Then you are contriving to only read half of my posts. Because on one hand I have pointed out there is no good reason to have it there, but on the other hand I have ALSO pointed out numerous reasons to NOT have it there.

If you insist on only acknowledging half my argument, then you do nothing but erode the credibility of you then moaning you are having trouble following my arguments. You provide no arguments for your position, and try to smoke screen this fact by PRETENDING I have done the same. I have not. I have given numerous examples and arguments for mine. You merely dodge them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Faith formation and education is already kept to the club houses of people in that particular hobby - it's kept to the Churches, and it's kept to the schools of those people in that particular hobby.

And once again I have to keep pointing out that I have not expressed ANY issue with that at all. I just do not feel this is the best system and that in a better system such schools should not be funded by the state in any way unless it can be shown that a core compulsory state curriculum was being implemented by them in an ethos free way and that the funding they receive is not spent on anything BUT implementing that curriculum in an ethos free way.

Having done so, if the kids stay back an hour or more some days to be indoctrinated into your brand of unsubstantiated and stultifying nonsense, funded by the parents and/or the school in some other way..... then I have said nothing so far that would have any issue with that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're even welcoming to people who don't share in their hobby to come and join them! Divisive you say?

Yes I do. And I do not see attempts to indoctrinate and assimilate others into it as a rebuttal to that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If people do not want to share in their hobby, then those people are still accommodated as far as is practicably possible

And all I have proposed so far is a system where what is "practically possible" in this regard would be starkly increased. For example at present due to our "integrated curriculum" it is meaningless to opt your child out of religion.... because the ethos of that religion permeates the rest of the curriculum too. So the faith formation over all is not something you can opt kids out of.

In the kind of system I describe however there is nothing to opt the child out of in the first place. So accommodating people is not just more practically possible, it happens by default. And opting a child out of religion would mean nothing more than the child leaving the school at the end of the school day and not staying back with the others who have been opted IN to being indoctrinated with stultifying unsubstantiated nonsense.

So as I keep pointing out, not only have you not rebutted my ideas in even the smallest way.... every one of the concerns you keep raising repeatedly is already addressed too.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it is that way, and that's reality, and if you're going to talk about the way things should be in your ideaspace that bears no reflection on reality, then I'd suggest you acknowledge reality first as your starting point before leaping off into your ideaspace.

Nice of you to suggest I do what I have already done numerous times. Other than this need you appear to have to keep throwing out superfluous post filler however I am not sure why you bother given... as I said.... I have already done so multiple times.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you appear to be doing is talking from your ideaspace as though it actally has any chance of becoming reality.

Yes and no. What I tend to do in any area is establish an ideal or end game or target. And flesh that out with (try it sometime) arguments, evidence, data and reasoning as to WHY I think it the ideal.

THEN I observe reality and start working towards that ideal. The ideal itself might be unrealistic in reality and may never happen, but that does not negate the utility of having one to work towards. Because having such a target defines the idea space and playing space within which I can work, and establishes valid and invalid moves in that space.

Put simply, in case you have more issues understanding me, I distinguish between arguments as to what I feel is right and wrong, and arguments related to how to attain those goals.

I explained this same distinction to you before on an abortion thread where you decided to pretend I was not aware of laws and legislation I was more than aware of. I established the distinction between what my ideal on abortion is (free and unrestricted choice on abortion up to a cut off point of in or around the 16-20 weeks mark) and what my actual arguments on abortion in Ireland are given the current legal and political landscape.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why you think I should need to address an argument that has no apparent basis in reality is lost on me tbh.

The reason it is lost on you is that I have not OFFERED any arguments that are not based in reality. So you appear to be struggling to address something that is not even there. Which is inevitably only going to leave you lost.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your arguments appear to ignore the legal system, politics, society, and so on

Again the distinction I re-explained to you above addresses this issue. I ignore nothing, and have ignored nothing, rather when I am arguing what I think the ideal is.... the CURRENT system is irrelevant. When I argue how to ATTAIN that ideal.... the CURRENT system is not just relevant but dominant. The distinction is not a small one so I would work on grasping it fully before you continue further to attempt, but fail, to parse what I write and why I write it. You've moaned that you can not parse my posts and I would recommend therefore you focus on grasping this non-trivial distinction before you work on anything else.

I believe the ideal end game to work towards is a school system and curriculum that is entirely secular, the content and delivery of which is funded by the state and is entirely devoid of religious ethos. That is what I am arguing here now.

HOW to attain that and what our next moves should be are a separate conversation. One I am not having at this moment in time with you from my side. If you are having it then you are talking past me, not with me. I am more than willing to have that conversation at some time of course, but not at the expense of being derailed from the conversation I am ACTUALLY having. I generally work hard on forums not to be derailed. But especially so with someone I have noted innumerable times uses an MO of derailment as a dodge tactic almost as a matter of course. I tend to double or triple my resistance to tangents and derailed against someone of that standard.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That'd be the ideal you envision in your ideaspace that has no grounding whatsoever in reality then?

Except the reality and arguments I have offered. None of which you appear to have chosen to actually address. AGAIN.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear somehow to intend to defy evolution, and that's an idea I find intriguing!

No idea what you are talking about or what you think you even mean here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think I've sufficiently covered what parents can do in their own time already, without necessitating your permission to do so.

Then you will be overjoyed to find I neither offered my position nor suggested it was required. More of your superfluous filler that has nothing to do with anything I wrote I see.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fatal logic error there

Oh look, you have just asserted a fail in logic without actually showing one. The examples of what I started this post talking about really do abound. It is a logic error because.... well because you decree it to be so. How nice for you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the popular vote appears to win out over logic and reason every time.

A statement that would be relevant if we HAD a popular vote on the issue but we do not. And what surveys we do have on the issue show all kinds of numbers that do not support your case. Large %s of people saying they would opt for an ethos free option were it readily available. Quantities of people engaging in things like baptism solely for the purposes of ensuring school admissions. Lots of people who would not actually care to stand against the kind of system I describe. And much more. So yes by all means work on getting a vote on the issue. I fully expect the popular vote to result in a situation just fine and dandy with me thanks.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I give you my word as a (somewhat? ) gentleman, that as soon as you get your head out of your ideaspace and start acknowledging reality, I will provide you with a list of arguments that are actually based in reality.

Yet all the arguments I have applied to this conversation and my ideals are very much based in reality, despite your pretense to the contrary. So by all means get to it any time you feel ready. It would be a welcome change.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I cannot come up with arguments against ideas that have no grounding in reality.

Lucky I have presented none then. Alas you appear to be similarly unable to come up with arguments against ANY of my ideas either. Quelle Surprise.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I find "people want it" to be a good argument to support what people actually want.

I am sure you do when it is literally the only argument you appear to have. But I have explained at length now, entirely unrebutted, as to why that argument does not fly out here in reality. I repeat if 75% of parents suddenly said they wanted 3 hours a week dedicated to their children being trained up to try out for X-Factor.... the response would AT MOST be to evaluate if there is any sane or good reason to give people what they want. I fully expect the answer to be "no" and the idea would be shelved. So "what people want" is not that much of an argument at all.

The correct approach is to evaluate the benefits of having religious ethos in the curriculum or the implementation of it. The benefits of removing it. Compare and contrast. And make a decision based on the results. And if the conversation between you and I is anything to go by there are numerous arguments for it's removal and absolutely no arguments for it's being there. Other than this continued bleating of "I want it I want it I want it".

But again as I said above the "I want it" argument is not only useless, but unsubstantiated. I do not see the figures suggesting people DO want it. Least of all from you. What few figures we do have on the issue suggest exactly the opposite. So good luck with the "people want it" non-argument there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You say religion brings nothing positive

I have said that no one has shown me it brings anything positive. Least of all you. And least of all in the context of having it in the content or implementation of a school curriculum. I am, as ever, waiting for actual arguments to this effect from you but as per usual none appear to be forth coming.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and I can only say that I disagree entirely with that assertion.

And I can only repeat that you keep repeating your disagreement without giving any actual substance to that disagreement. The assertions lies solely with you therefore, not me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do not want your 'alternative'. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Nothing I have said or argued cares or is related to what you want. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it appears to restrict what I can do already without requiring your permission!

Except, as I keep pointing out but you appear uninterested to acknowledge, nothing I have proposed or argued restricts anything other than funding and admission policies. But by all means lets see if you can lend substance to your own words for once. It would be a welcome change. Let's hear it for once. Regale me with what EXACTLY the kind of society I have proposed would restrict you in doing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We've been over this - of course my reason is simplistic. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than simply "NO"

Given that is all you appear capable of offering I can see why that is all you would argue for offering. But a cop out it remains, despite your pretense to the contrary.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the reality is that it's written in the Irish Constitution that the State has these obligations, duties and responsibilities.

Exactly. And that is the kind of thing many are working towards changing. Again the distinction here is the argument between how I think it should be, and how it actually is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have elaborated at length as to why the current reality exists, and yet you insist on substituting reality for your own ideaspace.

I have done no such thing outside the fantasy land in your head.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really don't.

I really do. But nice of you to tell me what I think, rather than listen to me tell you what I think. Because yea, that is always honest and helpful.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You tried that before and you failed miserably at it

No I did not, and here is yet ANOTHER example of many of you declaring something to be a fail, illogical, wrong, or whatever without actually offering any substance. Assert and run. Assert and run. Quite the MO you have there.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Apart from that, it is as I suggested before, that it is people's judgement of other people who are different to them in some way, that is harmful. Religion isn't the problem then, passing judgement upon other people who are in any way different to us, is the problem. Since that has been a trait instinctive in humans since the dawn of man, that is why I suggest you appear to want to defy evolution.

Except I am doing no such thing because I acknowledge those human traits. My issue is with things that exacerbate that trait. Especially for no reason or with no benefit. Or even with benefits that do not scale with paying that cost.

So if you are going to pretend I have "failed" at something perhaps try attacking my actual position and not one you are forced to merely pretend I hold. Then again given the proportion of replies from you that are entirely founded on attacking positions I do not hold, I am unsure where such a change would leave you. Floundering I suppose.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really don't, and you actually never will. That is reality.

Once again nice of you to tell me what I think or see, especially erroneously, but I think I will continue to tell you what I think, rather than allow you to tell me what I think.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How you choose to evaluate your ideas is utterly meaningless to me as you are logically predisposed to place an unrealistic over-evaluation on your ideas than I would. Thankfully for you at least, your thoughts cost me nothing, not even a penny. If I had to pay for your thoughts, I'd be expecting better value for money as the cost v. benefit analysis would show the penny simply isn't worth the candle.

The above fluff from you has no actual content. Just cop out nonsense bordering on empty ad hominem. More of your superflous post filler really. As usual all you can do is declare my ideas and comments worthless, but as per usual you can not offering a single actual direct rebuttal to anything I wrote.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion costs nothing though? It literally costs nothing!

Oh really do keep up. I am not talking about "cost" as in financial or anything like that. I am talking about the costs we pay in terms of harms and damages to society, problems we over forced to work to overcome due to religion, the deaths and hatred we see caused by religion, the nonsense acrobatics we engage in to pander to religion, and the complete waste of time and money and resources we are faced with to accommodate differences in religion and religious opinion. All of these are the "costs" of religion and when someone harps on at me about some isolated "benefit" of religion that they have cherry picked out of the big picture.... I do not just see this "benefit". I see that benefit in the context of the cost we pay for having it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you are arguing we pay for, is actually the cost of being human.

Not ONE thing I have argued for is at the expense of our humanity of being human no. No idea WHERE you got this tosh from. It appears to have been extracted entirely from an orifice not normally associated with communication.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the benefits by far and above outweigh the costs.

Oh those airy fairy "benefits" that you have not actually listed. You keep talking about the "benefits" without actually saying what they are. One of those people clinging to the "baby in the bath water" without being explicit as to what the baby actually is in the analogy.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again, we could argue back and forth all day on the value we place on ideas, but it wouldn't get us anywhere, which is why I don't engage in it, and have a selection of rebuttals to choose

And yet again your usual "We could argue this but...." cop out structure. Always the same from you. Always "I could argue this" or "I could rebut this" followed by some cop out narrative as to why you will not be doing so. I genuinely wonder, except possibly yourself, if anyone is genuinely fooled by this canard of yours.

"NO", and... actually I thought I had more.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sam Harris and Michael Nugent seem to be making great roads into inter-faith dialogue?

They are actually yes. They both have their failures too of course. But they are making great progress there too. I am not seeing how this sentence from you however is in any way a reply to the 4 paragraphs from me you actually quoted. Oh wait, just more of your filler to look like you are replying without actually saying anything that relates to what you replied to. Nice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Meanwhile, we here in Ireland still have no Government after an election that was how many weeks ago now?

I am not seeing how this sentence from you however is in any way a reply to the 4 paragraphs from me you actually quoted. Oh wait, just more of your filler to look like you are replying without actually saying anything that relates to what you replied to. Nice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did identify who the baby was?

No. Not at all. Just this placeholder term "benefits" that you have lent no actual substance to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Good for them. I'm not sure how that relates to anything I said for myself though?

I do not recall suggesting it does. I was merely mentioning that there are numerous ways, without subscribing to unsubstantiated stultifying nonsense, to attain the goals and effects you describe.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My clubhouse, lest you need reminding, is also the Catholic ethos school.

And that, lest you need reminding, I have no issue with. The issue I have is solely with how that school is funded, why it is funded, what it does with that funding, and what curriculum it should.... if receiving state funding.... be implementing and how.

In such a system as I propose, if you and your fellow hobbyists want to use state funded facilities for your little meetups after those obligations are met, then you are more than welcome to do so in such a system. Just fund it yourself and leave the facilities as clean and functional as you founded them when you ensure the door does not hit you on the way out.

I myself went to a school in Raheny for example. I would go home after school, have dinner, do my homework, and three times a week I would return to the school facilities to engage in combat training. Kenpo and Bo-staff. I paid the fees out of my pocket money, we signed an obligation to protect the facilities and leave them as we found them, and the clubs paid out of their fees to the school a rental fee. Which paid for the costs (electricity, ongoing wear and tear etc) of our presence there indulging our hobby.

Why should your hobby be any different ideally? I see no difference and you have failed to show one with 100% consistency. You either have literally got NO argument to present to this question I keep asking, or you are protecting it from view for reasons known only to yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's quite something when I could say exactly, well, almost the same thing as you have just done

Oh I am sure you could SAY it. But as with multiple examples I have given in this post alone, and multiple times in multiple other threads and posts too, you would merely be saying it without lending the assertion any substance.

The simple fact is I have given lengthy and numerous arguments for an ideal where the state, the state education system, the state curriculum content, and the delivery of that content, would be better off entirely free of religious ethos. I have listed the benefits of having it that way. I have listed the harms and problems for having it the other way.

You in response have offered nothing in return except this repetitive bleating that you want it that way. Quite literally no argument of ANY sort for the benefit of the current system has come from your text. Nothing. At all.

So by all means SAY it. It will just be more empty filler assertion from you. And at this stage I expect little else.

One eyed Jack

I'm just going to condense your post down to the fundamentals so we can move the discussion forward.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will summarize my position ONCE AGAIN for you and maybe this time you can be explicit about where the disagreement lies.

The ideal I argue for is

1) a country with a state funded school system, offering a curriculum that is entirely secular and free from a religious ethos, that is presented and taught in a way that is secular and free from a religious ethos. The admissions to it would be blind to race, creed, sex and religion. And it would be compulsory.

The secular curriculum you describe already exists, and it is taught in a way that is secular and free from a religious ethos. The admissions to the type of school system you describe already exist. The curriculum you describe is compulsory.

Because it is education is funded by the State, and funds are distributed by means of the patronage system, the more students being educated under a particular patronage, the more funding and resources for those children's education will be allocated to the schools.

2) Further education in anything outside that curriculum, be it religious or otherwise, or presented with an ethos or otherwise, would be then entirely optional, addmissions to it could discriminate as they please, and it would not be funded by the state in any way that differs from how people getting state funding usually do so for their club or hobby. I have given the example before of the fishing club I am part of which gets grants from the state, and from bodies like the national lottery.

So, no different to the way the education system is already set up then?

And I have yet to hear a single argument from you as to what is wrong with the above proposal, or how the above does NOT address the concerns you have expressed related to having no religious ethos in the school education system etc etc.

I have no issue with any of the above then. It appears we are in agreement.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm just going to condense your post down to the fundamentals so we can move the discussion forward.





The secular curriculum you describe already exists, and it is taught in a way that is secular and free from a religious ethos. The admissions to the type of school system you describe already exist. The curriculum you describe is compulsory.

Because it is education is funded by the State, and funds are distributed by means of the patronage system, the more students being educated under a particular patronage, the more funding and resources for those children's education will be allocated to the schools.





So, no different to the way the education system is already set up then?





I have no issue with any of the above then. It appears we are in agreement.

To be honest I don't think you read his/her posts , otherwise how can you write the above ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest I don't think you read his/her posts , otherwise how can you write the above ?

That's not very fair. It took me all day to read their post (which is why I'm only replying now). I would never want anyone to think they're wasting their time, and I appreciate the lengths nozzferahtoo goes to, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time addressing points that I feel aren't worth it. That's why I condensed down the post to explicitly address nozferahtoo's fundamentals.

I can write the above because what I have written is the current reality. Nozzferahtoo has explicitly stated that they in no way want to interfere with religion in religious ethos schools. They want State funded schools with a mandatory State cureiculum where a religious ethos has no part in the school system, and those schools already exist!

There just aren't enough of them is what appears to be the problem, but there is currently no real demand for the State to fund the provision of more schools where it deems the educational needs of the children are already being met, and the parents in the areas that were identified for divestment demand no change in the patronage of their local schools.

looksee

Is there any real point in discussing the 'current reality' when the 'current reality' is what some of us see as the problem with the education system? It would be much more relevant to discuss the proposed changes that would create a fairer system.

I think you have willfully misunderstood Nozz's point about state funded schools - what he is saying is that they should be the default situation, and only schools that can show they are specifically religious founded and sponsored should be 'religious' schools.

Most of the arguments on this thread ignore the fact that if people do not live in a city where there is a choice of schools, their options are extremely limited. It is not sufficient to say 'we will let your child come to our religious school and s/he can opt out of the religion bits', the argument is simply that religion should be an optional extra, not the other way round.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not very fair. It took me all day to read their post (which is why I'm only replying now). I would never want anyone to think they're wasting their time, and I appreciate the lengths nozzferahtoo goes to, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time addressing points that I feel aren't worth it. That's why I condensed down the post to explicitly address nozferahtoo's fundamentals.

I can write the above because what I have written is the current reality. Nozzferahtoo has explicitly stated that they in no way want to interfere with religion in religious ethos schools. They want State funded schools with a mandatory State cureiculum where a religious ethos has no part in the school system, and those schools already exist!

There just aren't enough of them is what appears to be the problem, but there is currently no real demand for the State to fund the provision of more schools where it deems the educational needs of the children are already being met, and the parents in the areas that were identified for divestment demand no change in the patronage of their local schools.

You are misreading his/hers complete argument .

At its most basic level as I understand it what is being proposed is that all schools currently in receipt of public moneys must run a religious ethos free curriculum and be race creed colour blind in admission policy .

Not separate schools E.G Muslim/RCC/ Educate together etc as is the current system .

If you want to use the classrooms on your own time to teach religion/ astrology/ FF ethics / carpentry/rowing off you go .

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Is there any real point in discussing the 'current reality' when the 'current reality' is what some of us see as the problem with the education system? It would be much more relevant to discuss the proposed changes that would create a fairer system.

I think you have willfully misunderstood Nozz's point about state funded schools - what he is saying is that they should be the default situation, and only schools that can show they are specifically religious founded and sponsored should be 'religious' schools.

Most of the arguments on this thread ignore the fact that if people do not live in a city where there is a choice of schools, their options are extremely limited. It is not sufficient to say 'we will let your child come to our religious school and s/he can opt out of the religion bits', the argument is simply that religion should be an optional extra, not the other way round.

There is absolutely a point in discussing the current reality, because we can't go from A to B without it. We can all talk about our ideal system like money is no issue and social attitudes are no issue (in fact what appears to be becoming more of an issue now is ethnicity and socioeconomics, rather than religion) but this idea of a system that's "blind" to everything is pie in the sky stuff.

I understood what nozz is saying alright (at least this time I think I do), but it's all about their ideal, and no recognition of the fact that everyone's idea of a "fair" system, is the one that's most advantageous, to them! Where would anyone be going thinking that anyone is just going to roll over and say "Oh, ok then, I'll put myself out so that you can have what you want". Religious organisations didn't get to where they are by being charitable about it (ironically enough!). They're absolutely not going to hand over property and control of religious ethos schools without making the State pony up serious compensation. Where's that money going to come from? Religion isn't going to be any 'optional extra' in religious ethos schools, and the idea that religious ethos schools become secular, and tack on religious education as an after school activity akin to ET schools is just... well it's just not going to happen, and nozz said they are not arguing for interfering with religious ethos schools anyway (they provide an integrated curriculum and the religious ethos permeates the school and so on, the mandatory State curriculum is tacked on to the religious curriculum and ethos, rather than the other way round).

State schools could only become the default if the State were able to fund the provision of more schools than are currently under the patronage system. That would mean funding education in schools under the patronage system, while also funding the building of new schools in the same areas, where there is simply insufficient demand, and people will stick with the devil they know whether it be tradition, sentimentality, social segregation and exclusion, bigotry, xenophobia, or just plain old racism. "Religion" provides a handy smokescreen for much of the above. That's why they'll want to hold onto it.

It's an issue that there's no getting away from, and it's not simply a case of "wait until the religious die off", I imagine the intelligentsia have been peddling that hack for as long as religion has existed in human society. It's not religion that's divisive, and it never has been. It's the underlying politics and fearmongering and ignorance of human beings that is divisive. It's the arrogance of people that think they're smarter, more intelligent, more intellectual, morally superior to everyone else, that is divisive. Religion, or indeed the lack thereof, only papers over the cracks of some people's attitudes towards each other so we can think of ourselves as an evolved, civilised society.

With regard to living in a city in terms of access to education - due to poor urban planning in the first place (or maybe it wasn't, if you can afford to live in an affluent area), the choice of the type of school you'll have access to isn't nearly so simple due again to socioeconomic factors, oversubscription, and plenty more factors I mentioned above. So much so that religion or lack thereof may be the least of your worries in trying to access the schools with the best reputation, so that you can avoid the school with the worst reputation (both of which may happen to be religious ethos schools). There are a couple of other types of schools alright, but they may well be oversubscribed too, or there might be plenty of places, but the parent may not want that type of education, or the fact that the majority of the students in the school, their first language isn't english!

Granted, living outside the city in towns and villages there's no doubt a trade off alright, but oversubscription isn't an issue, and children are far more likely to have more in common with their peers and the parents than the differences between them such as religion. It would simply be impractical to build one off schooling in rural areas where there is already a school, albeit granted with a religious ethos. They're unlikely to be able to avoid religion in rural communities anyway what with the whole GAA, Foróige, Macra na Feirme, etc. Well, I suppose they could, if they chose to isolate their children from society to protect them from being exposed to religion, which realistically speaking, permeates not just schools, or government, or halls of power, but every single facet of Irish society, in one form or another.

looksee

Women will never get the vote because they don't have the vote and why should men who have the vote allow them to have it? You can't defeat the system, that's the way it is.

You won't get rid of slavery because slavery is important to people who have them; they paid good money for the slaves, just because you think there should not be slavery doesn't mean that people should have to give them freedom.

You can't stop people smoking in public places. People have always smoked in pubs, they are not going to give it up. If people want pubs that don't have smoking then they should open some. Why can't they just go outside if they do not want to be in a room full of smoke. I want to be able to smoke in the pub, why should I stop just because a few selfish people don't want to breath smoke?

And so on and so forth. Its called progress.

Cue line by line rebuttal of the connection between emancipation, slavery and smoking, and religion.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Women will never get the vote because they don't have the vote and why should men who have the vote allow them to have it? You can't defeat the system, that's the way it is. You won't get rid of slavery because slavery is important to people who have them; they paid good money for the slaves, just because you think there should not be slavery doesn't mean that people should have to give them freedom. You can't stop people smoking in public places. People have always smoked in pubs, they are not going to give it up. If people want pubs that don't have smoking then they should open some. Why can't they just go outside if they do not want to be in a room full of smoke. I want to be able to smoke in the pub, why should I stop just because a few selfish people don't want to breath smoke? And so on and so forth. Its called progress.

Cue line by line rebuttal of the connection between emancipation, slavery and smoking, and religion.

Did you make a connection between them?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

And so on and so forth. Its called progress.

Cue line by line rebuttal of the connection between emancipation, slavery and smoking, and religion.

There's a connection alright, but I'm thinking about how religion inspired people to want to abolish slavery, religious emancipation, and ehh, not too sure about why the smoking ban appears in there as it was neither religiously motivated, nor was it opposed by any religion (none that I'm aware of anyway?).

Meanwhile, we could talk about the Industrial Revolution if you like, and how modern employment rights and welfare for workers came about, or we could maybe, possibly, talk about education and who has educated most of the known world when education is normally the preserve of the elite few in society?

Nope, no line by line rebuttals, just curious as to what any of the above had to do with social progress and maybe social justice. which has always been driven by politics, but led by religion.

looksee

The reference was more to your argument that nothing can be done because this is the way it is and we can't do anything about it. And anyway we don't want to (those of us that fall on the advantaged side of the fence).

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

The reference was more to your argument that nothing can be done because this is the way it is and we can't do anything about it. And anyway we don't want to (those of us that fall on the advantaged side of the fence).

I never argued that nothing can be done about it. My argument has always been quite the opposite, that we should have a secular education system in Ireland, that we should have secular Government in Ireland, that the Constitution which governs the people in this country should be secular, that all people regardless of their circumstances should have equal access to education and opportunities in employment.

I also never said that anyone on the advantaged side of any fence had no interest in doing anything about it. I hear grand ideas a dozen times a day about how society should be, but I never hear any concrete ideas about how to achieve that. It's usually "someone else's job" because "ah sure what can I do, I'm only one person like". Apathy and indifference and individualism and just pure selfishness and thinking only of themselves, are the greatest barriers to social progress.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never argued that nothing can be done about it. My argument has always been quite the opposite, that we should have a secular education system in Ireland, that we should have secular Government in Ireland, that the Constitution which governs the people in this country should be secular, that all people regardless of their circumstances should have equal access to education and opportunities in employment.

I also never said that anyone on the advantaged side of any fence had no interest in doing anything about it. I hear grand ideas a dozen times a day about how society should be, but I never hear any concrete ideas about how to achieve that. It's usually "someone else's job" because "ah sure what can I do, I'm only one person like". Apathy and indifference and individualism and just pure selfishness and thinking only of themselves, are the greatest barriers to social progress.

Simple- do away with the patronage system in publicly funded schools and have a religious free curriculum and admission policy .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Simple- do away with the patronage system in publicly funded schools and have a religious free curriculum and admission policy .

If only it actually were that simple. Yet another grand idea and no idea how to get there. It's a good thing you don't have any idea how to get there because what you're suggesting would be more akin to State totalitarianism than secularism.

Public funds should be used to fund education, regardless of the ethos of the school whether it has an ethos based in religion or a non-religious ethos. Because religious education is integrated into the curriculum in religious ethos schools, they should funded by the State in the same way as non-religious ethos schools. They should be given no special privileges or exemptions that are not given to non-religious ethos schools, and vice versa.

To deny people the right to manifest their faith in a school which is of their faith, is to deny those children an education. I say the same for children of no religion or who's parents are non-religious. At the moment in Ireland, the issue is that there aren't sufficient choices for parents. The only people who can actually change that situation, are people themselves, by putting pressure on politicians and lobbying government to address the situation. Otherwise, successive Governments will continue to fob off the UN and carry on as before.

They can't ignore their own people if the demand becomes too great for them to ignore. Right now, that demand is nothing more than an awkward mumble among individuals that they're "only doing it to give the granny a day out" and "don't want my children to feel left out" and so on. Support in a cohesive movement is what these people are lacking as they fall over themselves to distance themselves from any ideas of a community.

It's ironic, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Until people get their priorities in order, they will never present a credible threat to the current status quo.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If only it actually were that simple. Yet another grand idea and no idea how to get there. It's a good thing you don't have any idea how to get there because what you're suggesting would be more akin to State totalitarianism than secularism.

Public funds should be used to fund education, regardless of the ethos of the school whether it has an ethos based in religion or a non-religious ethos. Because religious education is integrated into the curriculum in religious ethos schools, they should funded by the State in the same way as non-religious ethos schools. They should be given no special privileges or exemptions that are not given to non-religious ethos schools, and vice versa.

To deny people the right to manifest their faith in a school which is of their faith, is to deny those children an education. I say the same for children of no religion or who's parents are non-religious. At the moment in Ireland, the issue is that there aren't sufficient choices for parents. The only people who can actually change that situation, are people themselves, by putting pressure on politicians and lobbying government to address the situation. Otherwise, successive Governments will continue to fob off the UN and carry on as before.

They can't ignore their own people if the demand becomes too great for them to ignore. Right now, that demand is nothing more than an awkward mumble among individuals that they're "only doing it to give the granny a day out" and "don't want my children to feel left out" and so on. Support in a cohesive movement is what these people are lacking as they fall over themselves to distance themselves from any ideas of a community.

It's ironic, and it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Until people get their priorities in order, they will never present a credible threat to the current status quo.

You really do dodge and duck everything don't you , everything you have just outlined above can be accommodated in the system I have outlined , just do it after school hours .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

You really do dodge and duck everything don't you

No, I don't.

everything you have just outlined above can be accommodated in the system I have outlined

No, it can't.

just do it after school hours .

What part of "religious ethos" are you not understanding? It is the ethos of the school itself, and it should be practiced and fostered both in school, after school, at home, at work, in every part of the person's life who identifies as a member of a religion, and has chosen that their children should also be members of that community.

A secular State would mean that the State would not interfere with that, and would not favour one religion over another or none. It would treat all it's citizens equally and fairly regardless of their faith or none. What's happening in other countries like France is not secularism, it's totalitarianism, and it's laws are directly targeting and discriminating against a minority based on their faith. It's a short-sighted attempt at enforcing totalitarian law and extinguishing a unique culture which refuses to bend to Western European social and cultural norms.

You would want the same for Irish society, and that is something I could never support, because that isn't society progressing IMO, but rather the opposite - instead of adapting and working together and gaining an understanding of each others culture and learning from each other - society would be regressing and losing a rich culture and heritage for the sake of what exactly? Nothing. Literally, nothing. Because there isn't anything replaces religion. It simply cannot be replaced, and to think it can be, and at the same time to consider oneself 'enlightened', is something I just cannot understand.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don't.





No, it can't.





What part of "religious ethos" are you not understanding? It is the ethos of the school itself, and it should be practiced and fostered both in school, after school, at home, at work, in every part of the person's life who identifies as a member of a religion, and has chosen that their children should also be members of that community.

A secular State would mean that the State would not interfere with that, and would not favour one religion over another or none. It would treat all it's citizens equally and fairly regardless of their faith or none. What's happening in other countries like France is not secularism, it's totalitarianism, and it's laws are directly targeting and discriminating against a minority based on their faith. It's a short-sighted attempt at enforcing totalitarian law and extinguishing a unique culture which refuses to bend to Western European social and cultural norms.

You would want the same for Irish society, and that is something I could never support, because that isn't society progressing IMO, but rather the opposite - instead of adapting and working together and gaining an understanding of each others culture and learning from each other - society would be regressing and losing a rich culture and heritage for the sake of what exactly? Nothing. Literally, nothing. Because there isn't anything replaces religion. It simply cannot be replaced, and to think it can be, and at the same time to consider oneself 'enlightened', is something I just cannot understand.

See , here you go again - what you mean is you want your religious ethos privileged above all others . That is the reality

You try to dress it up by saying that all other belief systems can also have their own schools . But you know in practical terms that is impossible .

We get it, you believe 'what we have we hold' end of story . All the rest of your post is just the usual filler , adapting and working together you say !

I notice it is everyone else that has to do the adapting and working.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

See , here you go again - what you mean is you want your religious ethos privileged above all others . That is the reality

You try to dress it up by saying that all other belief systems can also have their own schools . But you know in practical terms that is impossible .

We get it, you believe 'what we have we hold' end of story . All the rest of your post is just the usual filler , adapting and working together you say !

I notice it is everyone else that has to do the adapting and working.

I'm almost tempted to suggest you'd play the world's smallest violin a lot better if you took that chip off your shoulder, but just like I am, you're entitled to believe what you want and all. I won't bother arguing with you as it's clear all you're doing is arguing just for the sake of it.

No I don't accept that in practical terms that anything is impossible. If I resigned myself with that sort of attitude I would have given up on life long ago. I don't believe 'we have what we hold', and that's why I believe in sharing what we have, but if you attempt to take something from someone that isn't yours to take, like their dignity, well, not to put too fine a point on it but I don't give two fcuks who you are, I'll do whatever is in my power to stop you.

No, 'everyone else' isn't doing any adapting and working, and that's the whole problem, they're not adapting, because they want everything their own way, and it's probably a good thing in that sense that they're not working, if getting their own way meant that they would impose their will on other people and rob them of their dignity. Because that is exactly the kind of society you are advocating for - one where everyone else has to pay the price of you getting your own way rather than sharing what you have and people share what they have with you.

It's not bloody kindergarten you're in now. I would say that to anyone who shares your opinion btw so you shouldn't take that as a criticism of you as a person. It's a criticism of your opinion, which is indeed becoming all too common in Irish society, sadly, IMO.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm almost tempted to suggest you'd play the world's smallest violin a lot better if you took that chip off your shoulder, but just like I am, you're entitled to believe what you want and all. I won't bother arguing with you as it's clear all you're doing is arguing just for the sake of it.

No I don't accept that in practical terms that anything is impossible. If I resigned myself with that sort of attitude I would have given up on life long ago. I don't believe 'we have what we hold', and that's why I believe in sharing what we have, but if you attempt to take something from someone that isn't yours to take, like their dignity, well, not to put too fine a point on it but I don't give two fcuks who you are, I'll do whatever is in my power to stop you.

No, 'everyone else' isn't doing any adapting and working, and that's the whole problem, they're not adapting, because they want everything their own way, and it's probably a good thing in that sense that they're not working, if getting their own way meant that they would impose their will on other people and rob them of their dignity. Because that is exactly the kind of society you are advocating for - one where everyone else has to pay the price of you getting your own way rather than sharing what you have and people share what they have with you.

It's not bloody kindergarten you're in now. I would say that to anyone who shares your opinion btw so you shouldn't take that as a criticism of you as a person. It's a criticism of your opinion, which is indeed becoming all too common in Irish society, sadly, IMO.

Oh wow! Pot, kettle etc?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Oh wow! Pot, kettle etc?

How do you make that out?

To be perfectly honest, if you were trying to make out I was a hypocrite for some reason, you could have chosen from a virtual plethora of better examples where I wouldn't have to play guessing game as to what you mean.

I've already stated that I would not support State totalitarianism, how is that hypocrisy exactly?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm just going to condense your post down to the fundamentals so we can move the discussion forward.

Or in other words you are simply going to ignore and dodge the majority of my post as is your usual MO.

The only surprise here is that you did not trot out your usual stock throw away cop out canard of "The points just were not worth replying to."

EDIT: Oh no wait here it is in a later post......

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to waste anyone's time addressing points that I feel aren't worth it.

...... phew, for a second there I thought you were becoming less predictable.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The secular curriculum you describe already exists, and it is taught in a way that is secular and free from a religious ethos.

No what I describe does not exist. And aside from here saying it exists you have not actually shown it does. I speak of funding a system and curriculum entirely free at all levels from religious ethos in content and delivery and admission. Yet we live with the "integrated curriculum" with faith formation permeating the entire curriculum, and we live with schools prioritizing admissions based on faith and religion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So, no different to the way the education system is already set up then?

Except the numerous differences I have outlined at length already. But nice little tactic there of dodging the majority of my post, and then making comments that specifically ignore what was in it. Because yea, that is honest.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

this idea of a system that's "blind" to everything is pie in the sky stuff.

I do not see why. Perhaps given you do not WANT such a system means you have no investment of imagination into how one would implement such a system. But I see no particular difficulties in implementing ANYTHING that I have described.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understood what nozz is saying alright (at least this time I think I do), but it's all about their ideal, and no recognition of the fact that everyone's idea of a "fair" system, is the one that's most advantageous, to them!

Except what I propose is no such thing. All my arguments were based on it being fair and advantageous across the board. What I describe is not unfair on anyone that I can see, nor have you shown anything. Nor does it preclude ANY of the things you keep moaning about. And I note that when I asked you to list the things you think my system precludes.... that that request is among the text in my last post you simply ignored and dodged. But.....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where would anyone be going thinking that anyone is just going to roll over and say "Oh, ok then, I'll put myself out so that you can have what you want".

....... just to give you another chance to ignore and dodge it. By all means tell us what in my system is "putting you out" exactly. Or what it precludes you from doing or thinking or saying or being or anything of the sort. Because I am not seeing it, and you most certainly are not showing it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not religion that's divisive, and it never has been.

Except I described not just that it is divisive but HOW it is so. But of course that TOO is in the blocks of text you simply ignored and dodged without rebuttal of any sort. This is really quite the MO you have there. I have explained how and why it is divisive and the level of response I get from you is, essentially "la la la I cant hear you.... its not divisive... and I cant hearrrrrrr youuuuuu".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's a connection alright, but I'm thinking about how religion inspired people to want to abolish slavery

I am not so sure it did at all. Can you explain how you think one inspired the other, other than mere correlation? Remember those that supported and tried to hold on to slavery usually did so by citing religious texts too.

So it would seem more likely it is one of the MANY examples where religion did not inspire anything, people got their on their own, but then used religious structures, texts, linguistics and narrative to support their positions on the matter.

Those pro and anti slavery were citing and quoting from the same religious texts. Just like if you lock Andrew Sullivan and Bill OReilly into a room as devout catholics, and ask them to reach a resolution on god's attitude to homosexuality, they will both be quoting from the bible to support their total polar opposite positions on this issue.

But one does have to love the propaganda spin your ilk likes to put on it. "Oh our religion inspired people to abolish slavery". Bull. And it would be unsurprising if in 50 or 100 years from now we hear people in Ireland saying "Oh it was our religion that inspired us towards equal rights for homosexuals" too.

But when people like King stood up and quoted Biblical references in the fight against racism, for example, it was not because religion inspired him towards equal rights for all human kind, but because the narrative and structures of that religion were the best ones to parse his message through to deliver it to the target audience.

So yes, as I said, though will probably be ignored as with all the questions and requests you simply dodged over in my last post.......... do regale us with the links between religion and the wish to abolish slavery. Actual causal links rather than correlative nonsense if you would.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If only it actually were that simple.

And yet I see no one here, least of all me, suggesting it is simple. The majority of arguments I am seeing here, and 100% of my arguments, are just that it is the RIGHT thing to do. Or the correct ideal to at least strive towards and parse our moves and decisions through.

The how's and if's of actually attaining it are a different discussion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a good thing you don't have any idea how to get there because what you're suggesting would be more akin to State totalitarianism than secularism.

Oh do tell us how. Do. Please. I can not wait to hear this one fleshed out.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To deny people the right to manifest their faith in a school which is of their faith, is to deny those children an education.

That is just total tosh propaganda nonsense. Nothing I have seen proposed on this thread, least of all by me, would deny any children an education. Quite the opposite. What I describe guarantees an education for every child regardless of race, creed, religion, color or any other arbitrary divisions you might name.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At the moment in Ireland, the issue is that there aren't sufficient choices for parents.

Which would be addressed nicely and entirely by the system I describe.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only people who can actually change that situation, are people themselves, by putting pressure on politicians and lobbying government to address the situation.

Which we are doing in many ways and on many levels thankfully. Both here locally, and abroad when groups like Atheist Ireland go up before the UN to describe how things like the current education system in Ireland are failing to meet international standards on human rights.

A lot done, and lots more to do, but the trends, noises, news paper and media articles and more than I am seeing are at least tending in the right direction of late.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don't.

Yes, you really really do. With some remarkably consistency.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What part of "religious ethos" are you not understanding?

What part of people like us not having any issue with your religious ethos are YOU not understanding? We are fine with it. We just do not want it in the school curriculum, the implementation of that curriculum, the admissions policy to that curriculum, or the spending of state funds in facilities using and offering that curriculum.

This is not difficult stuff to grasp you know.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A secular State would mean that the State would not interfere with that, and would not favour one religion over another or none. It would treat all it's citizens equally and fairly regardless of their faith or none.

Which is EXACTLY what the system I describe is designed to do. So what your actual issue is, or basis for disagreement or non-understanding of anything I have written.... is becoming increasingly shrill and unclear.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You would want the same for Irish society

Nice of you to put words in other peoples mouths AGAIN but I see no one here advocating anything totalitarian or the stamping out of any culture. You are simply.... and quite wantonly..... making stuff up now.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

society would be regressing and losing a rich culture and heritage for the sake of what exactly?

Exactly what in the things I have described would cause a loss of rich culture or heritage? Nothing that I can see. And certainly nothing you have shown. You are just shot gun firing wanton and baseless misrepresentation and assertion into the thread now to derail arguments you have entirely failed to even reply to, let alone actively address or rebut.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nothing. Literally, nothing. Because there isn't anything replaces religion.

There are many things that could, and for many have, replaced religion. But this is a non-point in your tangential derail attempt given no one here is suggesting removing or replacing religion AT ALL. They are just pointing out a few places it should be kept out of.

Nothing more. Nothing less. The straw man spin you have to put on it however in order to have SOMETHING to decry or attack is, as I said, just getting shrill now.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if you attempt to take something from someone that isn't yours to take, like their dignity, well, not to put too fine a point on it but I don't give two fcuks who you are, I'll do whatever is in my power to stop you.

Then, other than your ongoing need to pepper and fill out your posts with derailing tangents..... you should be glad to find that no one appears to be proposing ANYTHING on this thread that is a threat to anyones dignity.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because that is exactly the kind of society you are advocating for

No. It is not. You are just wantonly going on a complete SPREE at this point of making up positions and goals and intentions for other people that none of them actually hold. And I know I keep using this phrase of late with you, but I honestly do not know (other than perhaps you yourself) who you think this is fooling.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've already stated that I would not support State totalitarianism, how is that hypocrisy exactly?

Yet no one is proposing it, so why you think your opposition to it is worth mentioning is.... well I have already explained three times above why I think you bring it up.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm almost tempted to suggest you'd play the world's smallest violin a lot better if you took that chip off your shoulder, but just like I am, you're entitled to believe what you want and all. I won't bother arguing with you as it's clear all you're doing is arguing just for the sake of it.

No I don't accept that in practical terms that anything is impossible. If I resigned myself with that sort of attitude I would have given up on life long ago. I don't believe 'we have what we hold', and that's why I believe in sharing what we have, but if you attempt to take something from someone that isn't yours to take, like their dignity, well, not to put too fine a point on it but I don't give two fcuks who you are, I'll do whatever is in my power to stop you.

No, 'everyone else' isn't doing any adapting and working, and that's the whole problem, they're not adapting, because they want everything their own way, and it's probably a good thing in that sense that they're not working, if getting their own way meant that they would impose their will on other people and rob them of their dignity. Because that is exactly the kind of society you are advocating for - one where everyone else has to pay the price of you getting your own way rather than sharing what you have and people share what they have with you.

It's not bloody kindergarten you're in now. I would say that to anyone who shares your opinion btw so you shouldn't take that as a criticism of you as a person. It's a criticism of your opinion, which is indeed becoming all too common in Irish society, sadly, IMO.

I don't know who you think you are replying to but it definitely isn't me

Are you really incapable of seeing that you are imposing your will , your vision on everyone else and like in all these cases of privilege you see yourself as the victim.

At its most basic the system outlined by Nozzeferato threats everyone the same , your is just a variation of Separate but Equal .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

I don't know who you think you are replying to but it definitely isn't me

Are you really incapable of seeing that you are imposing your will , your vision on everyone else and like in all these cases of privilege you see yourself as the victim.

At its most basic the system outlined by Nozzeferato threats everyone the same , your is just a variation of Separate but Equal .

Nope, I'm not imposing my will on everyone else at, all. I'm doing quite the opposite opposing any moves by anyone to impose their will, their vision, on everyone else. Honestly don't get me started on the 'privilege' nonsense because that's all it is. I'm not a victim of anything, you're not a victim of anything either, and I would oppose that ideology being introduced in schools and all.

At it's most basic, nozferahtoo's idea is nonsense, and shows no awareness of just how complex the education system actually is in Ireland, or the number of various organisations and stakeholders involved. It's not at all 'simple' as you put it, and if you were genuinely interested in education I'd suggest getting informed about it and then there could be real discussion take place, rather than bitching back and forth like we're in kindergarten.

The problem with nozferahtoo's system is that while on paper it treats everyone equally, everyone gets an equally sub-standard education with no regard for the individual characteristics of each school and the ethos within each school. I still have yet to hear how anyone expects the RCC to give up the schools they own and manage, to the State. They won't, nor should they have to. I see no reason why people can't campaign for more schools, rather than elbow their way in with a curriculum that nobody wants, and then attempting to call the shots in schools and telling the majority of parents that they must inconvenience themselves, so that a minority aren't put out by being exposed to religion, in religious ethos schools.

It's been tried at Supreme Court level here in Ireland, and it's been tried at ECHR level by other people who took a case in Italy. Both times they lost. The State has an obligation to provide for the education of children, and they are absolutely not going to exclude the largest patron body from funding because a minority have issues with funding the education of those children in those schools.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, I'm not imposing my will on everyone else at, all. I'm doing quite the opposite opposing any moves by anyone to impose their will, their vision, on everyone else. Honestly don't get me started on the 'privilege' nonsense because that's all it is. I'm not a victim of anything, you're not a victim of anything either, and I would oppose that ideology being introduced in schools and all.

At it's most basic, nozferahtoo's idea is nonsense, and shows no awareness of just how complex the education system actually is in Ireland, or the number of various organisations and stakeholders involved. It's not at all 'simple' as you put it, and if you were genuinely interested in education I'd suggest getting informed about it and then there could be real discussion take place, rather than bitching back and forth like we're in kindergarten.

The problem with nozferahtoo's system is that while on paper it treats everyone equally, everyone gets an equally sub-standard education with no regard for the individual characteristics of each school and the ethos within each school. I still have yet to hear how anyone expects the RCC to give up the schools they own and manage, to the State. They won't, nor should they have to. I see no reason why people can't campaign for more schools, rather than elbow their way in with a curriculum that nobody wants, and then attempting to call the shots in schools and telling the majority of parents that they must inconvenience themselves, so that a minority aren't put out by being exposed to religion, in religious ethos schools.

It's been tried at Supreme Court level here in Ireland, and it's been tried at ECHR level by other people who took a case in Italy. Both times they lost. The State has an obligation to provide for the education of children, and they are absolutely not going to exclude the largest patron body from funding because a minority have issues with funding the education of those children in those schools.

You are just using the same augments that dominant majorities have always used to discriminate against minorities or those with less power .

And the status quo is so embedded in your mind that you think you are the victim in being asked to give it up .

And funnily enough I actually believe you sincerely can't see it , a bit like those white guys in the USA with their poor me victim status .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

You are just using the same augments that dominant majorities have always used to discriminate against minorities or those with less power .

And the status quo is so embedded in your mind that you think you are the victim in being asked to give it up .

And funnily enough I actually believe you sincerely can't see it , a bit like those white guys in the USA with their poor me victim status .

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not a victim of anything...

I thought all the evidence and surveys and statistics and so on, put my opinion squarely in the minority though? I still wouldn't claim I'm a victim of anything even if that were the case.

If anything marien I'm working every day to change the status quo, and I come across people every day who claim they are victims and I'm privileged and all the rest of it. That kind of rhetoric wears very thin very quickly, especially when it's coming from people who don't know me from Adam.

The very idea of you making claims about me as if you know me better than I know myself, well, it's laughable really, but not entirely unexpected.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The very idea of you making claims about me as if you know me better than I know myself, well, it's laughable really, but not entirely unexpected.

I know what you write , what more do I need to know ? You put so much work and effort into your posts I have to believe you are totally sincere .

That leaves the only other explanation - you just don't get it .

The nearest analogy I can give you is the GAA and the demand from other sports to share . And for years they resisted such demands pointing out that they bought paid for all those facilities .

You are arguing as if the RCC is in the exact same position as they built bought and paid and maintain and pay the wages for all those schools .

The problem is they don't , the taxpayer does . But ah you I hear you say the taxpayers are majority catholic , so the schools should reflect that.

The point is though that is not criteria for how the state spend taxpayers money .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

I know what you write , what more do I need to know ? You put so much work and effort into your posts I have to believe you are totally sincere .

That leaves the only other explanation - you just don't get it .

The nearest analogy I can give you is the GAA and the demand from other sports to share . And for years they resisted such demands pointing out that they bought paid for all those facilities .

You are arguing as if the RCC is in the exact same position as they built bought and paid and maintain and pay the wages for all those schools .

The problem is they don't , the taxpayer does . But ah you I hear you say the taxpayers are majority catholic , so the schools should reflect that.

The point is though that is not criteria for how the state spend taxpayers money .

If you actually read my posts, you'd be left in no doubt as to how I argue and you wouldn't be having to put words in my mouth, and you also wouldn't have to imagine you're hearing me say anything I haven't said either. I actually agree with you that they are not the criteria for how the State spends it's revenues from taxes. The people who actually need reminding of that though, are the people that argue that their taxes shouldn't be used to provide for education.