Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

This is the only basis of your argument , what we have we hold - end of.

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

This is the only basis of your argument , what we have we hold - end of.

Fair enough. If you say so.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Fair enough. If you say so.

I do Jack and so do you .

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

I do Jack and so do you .

I haven't said any such thing. I'm interested in having a discussion on how to give each and every child the opportunity to fulfill their potential, and to that end, there are a couple of initiatives that are being introduced in Irish schools right now. Some of these include:

Delivery for Students with Special Educational Needs

Well-Being: promoting mental health in schools
Well-Being In Primary Schools
Well-Being In Post-Primary Schools

Creating a Welcoming and Positive School Climate to Prevent Homophobic and Transphobic Bullying
Being LGBT In School

Schools for Health in Ireland


The new Primary Language Curriculum was released just this week.


Oh, and in case you missed it -


Education about Religions and Beliefs (ERB) and Ethics-The consultation has closed:

Consultation on the proposals for a curriculum in Education about Religions and Beliefs (ERB) and Ethics took place from 3rd November 2015 to 31st March 2016.

As part of the consultation the NCCA engaged with a range of audiences including: teachers, schools, parents, children, educational partners, patrons, children's advocacy groups and other members of the general public. To ensure that consultation was inclusive and far-reaching a number of formats were used: online questionnaires, discussion groups, written submissions, school visits and meetings with education partners.

The key messages from the consultation will be outlined in a consultation report which will be published online in summer 2016.

But the consultation paper is worth a read:


Education about Religions and Beliefs (ERB) and Ethics in the Primary School: Consultation Paper


As is the key findings summary of a previous study published in 2014:


Education about Religions and Beliefs and Ethics in Primary Education: Key Findings Summary


I wouldn't expect you to read the full report here (but it does help inform context):


Education about Religions and Beliefs and Ethics in Primary Education: Country tables


Of course, you can't please everyone:


Atheist Ireland meets NCCA about exemption from ERB and Ethics course for Primary Schools


Oh, when you're done reading those btw, you're more than welcome to ask for some more reading material. I've got plenty more where they came from.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven't said any such thing. I'm interested in having a discussion on how to give each and every child the opportunity to fulfill their potential, and to that end, there are a couple of initiatives that are being introduced in Irish schools right now. Some of these include:

Delivery for Students with Special Educational Needs

Well-Being: promoting mental health in schools
Well-Being In Primary Schools
Well-Being In Post-Primary Schools

Creating a Welcoming and Positive School Climate to Prevent Homophobic and Transphobic Bullying
Being LGBT In School

Schools for Health in Ireland


The new Primary Language Curriculum was released just this week.


Oh, and in case you missed it -


Education about Religions and Beliefs (ERB) and Ethics-The consultation has closed:




But the consultation paper is worth a read:


Education about Religions and Beliefs (ERB) and Ethics in the Primary School: Consultation Paper


As is the key findings summary of a previous study published in 2014:


Education about Religions and Beliefs and Ethics in Primary Education: Key Findings Summary


I wouldn't expect you to read the full report here (but it does help inform context):


Education about Religions and Beliefs and Ethics in Primary Education: Country tables


Of course, you can't please everyone:


Atheist Ireland meets NCCA about exemption from ERB and Ethics course for Primary Schools


Oh, when you're done reading those btw, you're more than welcome to ask for some more reading material. I've got plenty more where they came from.

You must put a lot of work into your post so I am sorry to be so dismissive but none of this is relevant to the question .

What part of separating church and state do you not get !!!

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

You must put a lot of work into your post so I am sorry to be so dismissive but none of this is relevant to the question .

What part of separating church and state do you not get !!!

I hadn't expected you'd read all of the above publications in one go, but I do hope you would take the time to read them at some stage.

To answer your question though, there isn't any part of secularism I don't get. I just don't agree that patrons of schools with a religious ethos should be exempt from applying for funding from the State which has an obligation to provide for education. The fact that the patrons are religious organisations should neither be a criteria in their favour, nor to their detriment, and they should be assessed on an equal footing with any other patron body which applies to the State to provide education to the nation's children.

This is not the State favouring one religion over another, nor is it the State giving undue influence to, or having influence over, or interfering with, the ethos of any particular patron body. That is exactly the meaning of secularism. The State should be neutral on matters of belief, but has duties and obligations with regard to education.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I hadn't expected you'd read all of the above publications in one go, but I do hope you would take the time to read them at some stage.

To answer your question though, there isn't any part of secularism I don't get. I just don't agree that patrons of schools with a religious ethos should be exempt from applying for funding from the State which has an obligation to provide for education. The fact that the patrons are religious organisations should neither be a criteria in their favour, nor to their detriment, and they should be assessed on an equal footing with any other patron body which applies to the State to provide education to the nation's children.

This is not the State favouring one religion over another, nor is it the State giving undue influence to, or having influence over, or interfering with, the ethos of any particular patron body. That is exactly the meaning of secularism. The State should be neutral on matters of belief, but has duties and obligations with regard to education.

As I say you just don't get it . and by the way what makes you think I haven't read most of that stuff before ? Do you think you are the only one that keeps informed ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

As I say you just don't get it .

What is it that you think I don't get exactly?

marienbad wrote: »

and by the way what makes you think I haven't read most of that stuff before ?

The fact that you said this:

marienbad wrote: »

none of this is relevant to the question.

What part of separating church and state do you not get !!!

marienbad wrote: »

Do you think you are the only one that keeps informed ?

Not at all. I was hoping someone who is better informed than I am would actually help me to understand what it is they think I'm not getting. Perhaps you could inform me as to what it is you think I'm not getting?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, I'm not imposing my will on everyone else at, all. I'm doing quite the opposite

I find that this white noise just gets in the way generally. All this "That is just your opinion" or "I can have my opinion" or "You want to impose your will" stuff just clutters posts uselessly. As soon as ANYONE campaigns actively for ANYTHING at a social level, they are at some level attempting to impose their will on others. So it is "pot kettle black" stuff left and right and I try not to get into it myself.

However I feel as you have become increasingly shrill in this thread you are taking it to an extreme by not just accusing others of trying to impose their will, but instead replacing it with this fantastical hyperbole narrative of comparing the types of things I have described as totalitarian. That is WAY beyond mere spin really.

The kind of system proposed by myself and others on this thread is a universal compulsory all inclusive system at the core, with the ability to tack culture and individuality and diversity on in a modular fashion around that core. It is the exact opposite of Totalitarian and.... in a society where as I said we are all essentially "imposing our will" whatever we advocate.... it is the LEAST imposition of any system I have heard proposed, including the current status quo.

A fact evidenced by the ongoing fact that every time I request you adumbrate the impositions you expect upon you by the system I describe, or the preclusions you feel would suffer under it, I am met with everything lying on the continuum between total silence, and outright retreat behind the smoke screen of stock predictable moves you usually rely on such as declaring vast sections of my posts to "not be worth" replying to. In fact the only card you usually play with frequency that you have NOT played yet is one you have used in several threads of the "You have offended me so I am taking my ball home and not talking to you any more" type.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

At it's most basic, nozferahtoo's idea is nonsense

So you keep saying, and it is nice to see you have now moved from replying to the content of my posts.... through directly and wantonly ignoring the majority of that content..... into the now third person format of taking digs and asserting things about my posts in the third person as if I am not in the room anymore. Some decorum please.

But as I appear to have to point out in nearly every post to you now.... you keep SAYING my posts are nonsense, or illogical, or wrong, or flawed.... without actually lending any substance to how or why they are so. You genuinely do appear to feel that the way to support assertion is solely through repetition.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and shows no awareness of just how complex the education system actually is in Ireland

Except I have displayed that awareness, where necessary, quite frequently. That you ignore it does not magically mean it is not there. But as I KEEP pointing out to you, but as usual for you you simply ignore multiple times, there is a vast chasm of difference between a discussion about the current state of Ireland.... and a discussion of what (and why) I feel the IDEAL system in an IDEAL world would be.

To feed your crass and empty narrative that I am ignorant of things, you are forced to take examples of where I am doing the latter, and parse them through a structure of the former, in an attempt to make it look like I am unaware of things I am not only aware of, but likely MUCH more aware an informed about than you have been, are, or ever will be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with nozferahtoo's system is that while on paper it treats everyone equally, everyone gets an equally sub-standard education

What in my system is "sub standard" exactly? And what "standard" are you using to make this wanton but unsubstantiated and nonsense assertion exactly?? You keep simply making things up about both me, and what I describe, and I am yet to see you back up a SINGLE ONE of your assertion misrepresentations of either.

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.

And yet nearly every post you make to me, or now it seems ABOUT me, has you doing this very thing. A common MO I have called you on before, and you repeat again here, is that you appear to enjoy accusing others of what actually YOU are the one doing. So........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

.... clean up your own house before you run your finger through the dust on the side board in someone elses. Because of all the people I have read on this forum you are the LAST one who has the pedestal from which to admonish others in this regard.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you keep saying, and it is nice to see you have now moved from replying to the content of my posts.... through directly and wantonly ignoring the majority of that content..... into the now third person format of taking digs and asserting things about my posts in the third person as if I am not in the room anymore. Some decorum please.

And yet nearly every post you make to me, or now it seems ABOUT me, has you doing this very thing. A common MO I have called you on before, and you repeat again here, is that you appear to enjoy accusing others of what actually YOU are the one doing. So........

.... clean up your own house before you run your finger through the dust on the side board in someone elses. Because of all the people I have read on this forum you are the LAST one who has the pedestal from which to admonish others in this regard.

Y'know, if they were handing out rubber medals for irony -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...the likes of One Eyed Jack...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Charming... :pac:

I'll leave it there.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know, if they were handing out rubber medals for irony - I'll leave it there.

Except there is a marked and massive distinction you simply ignore here to support your distortion and snidery here above in that I DO address your posts and points at some length. I do not ignore you and talk about you in the third person as if you are not even in the room.

This is no small distinction, it is massive, and that you need to ignore it in order to manufacture the above non-response is more than a little telling. So keep your rubber medals in your own trophy cabinet, no one else requires one.

Talking about someone is one thing, I have nothing against it and never suggested I do. Whole sale ignoring someone in the room and talking about them as if they are not there, dodging their comments and dismissing their comments in the third person while talking to someone else.... THIS kind of behavior is just low and was what I was commenting on, and bears ZERO resemblance to what you have cross posted from another thread.

It is a behavior I simply can not be accused of as it is not something I have ever done, or would ever do.

So to summarize and repeat what you have dodged so far in the hopes you will raise your game and go back on topic:

1) What exactly are the impositions and pre-clusions you feel you would suffer under the system described.
2) How does the system described lead to a "substandard" education?
3) What metric are you even used to establish a standard here?
4) How is anything I wrote a description of "Totalitarian"?
5) How is anything I wrote likely to lead to a loss in diversity or culture?
6) Aside from the "assert and retreat" MO of declaring my positions to be "nonsense" or "flawed" or "illogical" or "wrong" can you actually lend substance to the suggestion they are so?
7) How is anything I have described an "attack on dignity"?
8) How is anything I have described an attempt to impose my will compared to anyone else advocating anything on a social level?
9) How is what I have described not fitting with the goal you yourself have espoused of "It would treat all it's citizens equally and fairly regardless of their faith or none."
10) How is what I have described NOT "secularism"?
11) Can you substantiate this link you made between religion and the inspiration to abolish slavery?
12) Can you address and rebut ANY of the comment I made about the divisive nature of religion other than to repeat "It is not divisive" and then run away?
13) Why, conceptually, is the system described "Pie in the sky" stuff exactly? Just because you can not see how to get there from here? Or because the very idea itself has some flaw you can elaborate on?
14) What are the arguments for the utility or benefit of having a religious ethos based curriculum, system of delivery, or both?

I think that is a basic summary of everything you have dodged so far.

volchitsa

So one of the main arguments for religious schools appears to be that parents want them, and that to refuse parents the right to educate their children as they desire is tantamount to totalitarianism, right?

So I'm interested in what limits, if any, should be put on that right, and who makes that judgment?

For instance there appear to be thousands of Jewish children in just one London borough who are not on the education authorities' lists of pupils, and some or all of them are attending traditional religious schools where they learn little other than religious texts in Hebrew and have most classes in Yiddish, with the result that they leave school with no recognized qualifications and poor English skills.

Who has the right to say those children aren't entitled to the education their parents believe is right for them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/calls-for-urgent-inquiry-into-sexual-abuse-of-jewish-children-in-illegal-schools-a6973571.html

(the article is actually about the authorities closing their eyes to allegations about sexual abuse in these schools for fear of accusations of racism, but my question is more about how far the rights of parents to religious schooling should go in the first place, since that is the point being made here.)

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

So one of the main arguments for religious schools appears to be that parents want them, and that to refuse parents the right to educate their children as they desire is tantamount to totalitarianism, right?

Of course that argument doesn't hold for a number of reason,
For example parents don't want their kids thought catholic things such as being divorced is wrong, gay is sinful and baby's out of wetlock is wrong. After all a large amount of children in this country are born outside of marriage.

Its also wrong to have a school system that claims to be accepting but at the same time demonizes an entire group of the population including those that attend schools (people that are gay).

Imagine for example a school system that educated black people but also pushed the idea that being black was wrong, we'd think such a system would be insane.

But yet here we have seriously questionable people wanting a system like this when it comes to gay people in Ireland. All at the tax payer expense.
:rolleyes:

It would be funny, if it wasn't true and depressingly sad that such people have such more hatred that they want such a system

looksee

For instance there appear to be thousands of Jewish children in just one London borough who are not on the education authorities' lists of pupils, and some or all of them are attending traditional religious schools where they learn little other than religious texts in Hebrew and have most classes in Yiddish, with the result that they leave school with no recognized qualifications and poor English skills.

Who has the right to say those children aren't entitled to the education their parents believe is right for them?

Possibly the people who have to support (through social benefits) the unemployable adults who have an in-depth knowledge of Jewish scripture, and little else?

silverharp

looksee wrote: »

Possibly the people who have to support (through social benefits) the unemployable adults who have an in-depth knowledge of Jewish scripture, and little else?

I'd agree, In one way I dont care how anyone raises their kids short of criminally exploiting them on the assumption that I as a taxpayer dont have to suffer the consequences. On the flipside if welfare is universal then these kind of schools are against the public interest. So you either ban these type of schools or you exclude them from the welfare system or any kind of living assistance.

volchitsa

looksee wrote: »

Possibly the people who have to support (through social benefits) the unemployable adults who have an in-depth knowledge of Jewish scripture, and little else?

Well yes but if employability is the criterion for being allowed to set up schools (these are not taxpayer funded after all) then where does that interference in private schools' curricula stop?

Arts and Drama schools probably have a lower rate of pupils employed in their specialized domains than say, ones that accentuate Science and Technology subjects. Bit harsh to say they should therefore be closed down though, isn't it?

Also, quite a few of those boys will presumably go on to be rabbis, I don't know how well that pays, but it's a job. So I'm not sure that mere expected employability is a good criterion for allowing a school to exist or not.

I suppose one could say that the curriculum is too specialized too young, so that the children are being trained for only one thing, and nothing else (girls to be good religious mothers and boys to be rabbis I imagine) but I'd expect parents to protest that this is what their children need.

Since we're being told that what parents want for their children is sufficient to justify religious schooling (and mind you these parents, unlike frosty Jack, are not being subsidized by the taxpayer, though I suspect they would be in Ireland) I wonder what Jack and those who defend religious schools have to say about this level of religious education.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

So one of the main arguments for religious schools appears to be that parents want them, and that to refuse parents the right to educate their children as they desire is tantamount to totalitarianism, right? So I'm interested in what limits, if any, should be put on that right, and who makes that judgment?

I think the argument would be that to refuse parents their right would be unConstitutional. The limit is that the State can still require that children receive a certain minimum education, and can in exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
I'd suggest that that 'certain minimum' could be as high a bar as might be set without making it overly burdensome on an average parent to achieve.

volchitsa wrote: »

For instance there appear to be thousands of Jewish children in just one London borough who are not on the education authorities' lists of pupils, and some or all of them are attending traditional religious schools where they learn little other than religious texts in Hebrew and have most classes in Yiddish, with the result that they leave school with no recognized qualifications and poor English skills. Who has the right to say those children aren't entitled to the education their parents believe is right for them? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/calls-for-urgent-inquiry-into-sexual-abuse-of-jewish-children-in-illegal-schools-a6973571.html (the article is actually about the authorities closing their eyes to allegations about sexual abuse in these schools for fear of accusations of racism, but my question is more about how far the rights of parents to religious schooling should go in the first place, since that is the point being made here.)

Is it possible that in the UK, unlike Ireland, the State isn't obliged as guardian of the common good, to require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social? It would seem in Ireland that whilst parents are entitled to provide the education they believe is right for their children, the State can still require that it meet minimum standards set by the State. I think it was well discussed on the School Patronage thread.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Is it possible that in the UK, unlike Ireland, the State isn't obliged as guardian of the common good, to require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social? It would seem in Ireland that whilst parents are entitled to provide the education they believe is right for their children, the State can still require that it meet minimum standards set by the State. I think it was well discussed on the School Patronage thread.

What a silly comment! See this: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/timeline.html

And before there is nit-picking about 'moral education'; in England this is called 'social and personal' and is there (at least) in the 1989 doc 14 (see 1984 Curriculum matters). In Ireland 'moral education' and 'guardian of the common good' is generally interpreted as religious involvement.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

What a silly comment! See this: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/timeline.htmlAnd before there is nit-picking about 'moral education'; in England this is called 'social and personal' and is there (at least) in the 1989 doc 14 (see 1984 Curriculum matters). In Ireland 'moral education' and 'guardian of the common good' is generally interpreted as religious involvement.

Well, silly isn't the most comprehensive rebuttal I've ever heard, but still; in Ireland the State has a Constitutional obligation, whereas in the UK it doesn't. So it's a fact that that in the UK, unlike Ireland, the State isn't obliged as guardian of the common good, to require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social. The States obligations are set out in acts of Parliament instead. Sorry
Still, their School Curriculum Act of 1998 did set out a National Curriculum which you would think volchitsas school would be obliged to follow, though it's worth pointing out that the article describes the school as 'illegal' anyway, so one gets the impression that the school already operates outside whatever oversight is required by the UK State.

looksee

You do realise you have not made your argument any less silly by repeating it?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

You do realise you have not made your argument any less silly by repeating it?

I realise it's not an argument, but a statement of facts I don't think anyone can help that you find the facts silly...

looksee

If it is a statement of facts it is an extraordinarily pointless one. It is a fact that Ireland has a constitution, which includes a definition of the state's responsibility towards children's education; your implication appeared to be that because the UK did not have a similar constitutional requirement it was somehow not fulfilling its obligations to children. It cannot be a constitutional requirement as there is no constitution, but the evidence is clear that children's education is comprehensively dealt with by the state in England. The state there is fulfilling the obligation that the Irish state claims to fulfill here, even though the Irish state has handed responsibility over mostly to the Catholic church.

volchitsa

looksee wrote: »

If it is a statement of facts it is an extraordinarily pointless one. It is a fact that Ireland has a constitution, which includes a definition of the state's responsibility towards children's education; your implication appeared to be that because the UK did not have a similar constitutional requirement it was somehow not fulfilling its obligations to children. It cannot be a constitutional requirement as there is no constitution, but the evidence is clear that children's education is comprehensively dealt with by the state in England. The state there is fulfilling the obligation that the Irish state claims to fulfill here, even though the Irish state has handed responsibility over mostly to the Catholic church.

Yes, exactly.

The UK education system certainly does take it upon itself to guarantee a level of education to be made available for children - that is the basis on which home schooled children are tested, as well as concerning itself with the safety and security of such children.

The absence of a written constitution is irrelevant here - if that is the point that was allegedly being made.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

If it is a statement of facts it is an extraordinarily pointless one. It is a fact that Ireland has a constitution, which includes a definition of the state's responsibility towards children's education; your implication appeared to be that because the UK did not have a similar constitutional requirement it was somehow not fulfilling its obligations to children.

Actually, my implication was that because the UK doesn't have the same Constitutional obligation the scope of regulation and therefore educational formats available may be much different; it's possible that the State would not legislate to give itself the right (or would legislate to withdraw its right) to say those children aren't entitled to the education their parents believe is right for them. Whereas in Ireland, the State has no choice.
In short (it's the new thing) Hurrah Ireland, if such an illegal thing were to happen here rather than the UK, the State has a higher obligation to deal with it. For what it's worth. If you think that's an extraordinarily pointless observation, then I direct you to volchitsas original post.

looksee wrote: »

It cannot be a constitutional requirement as there is no constitution, but the evidence is clear that children's education is comprehensively dealt with by the state in England. The state there is fulfilling the obligation that the Irish state claims to fulfill here, even though the Irish state has handed responsibility over mostly to the Catholic church.

Mmm... you're muddying the water there (on purpose, I know). The State hasn't handed over responsibility for determining 'a certain minimum education', or its obligation to 'in exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child'. Parents certainly delegate their Constitutional responsibilities with regards to education to religious bodies on a large scale. The State, not so much I think.

silverharp

wasnt sure where to stick this but it is odd that they assumed all Arab speakers are Muslim


Ask Brian: Why does Leaving Cert Arabic assume students will have knowledge of the Koran?


I am a Christian Syrian who has recently been forced to leave Damascus because of violence and, in particular, the bombing of the school attended by my three teenage daughters. My eldest daughter is sitting her Leaving Cert in June and intends taking Arabic as one of her subjects. In reviewing past papers, she has discovered that questions on the Koran are mandatory. She, as a Christian, has never studied the Koran. This is very unfair. What can we do about this?

TheChizler

silverharp wrote: »

wasnt sure where to stick this but it is odd that they assumed all Arab speakers are Muslim


Ask Brian: Why does Leaving Cert Arabic assume students will have knowledge of the Koran?

Any idea what kind of questions they are? The piece didn't mention.

robindch

Saudi Arabia has apparently curbed some of the powers of its notoriously unhelpful religious police.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/14/middleeast/saudi-arabia-religious-police-powers/

Absolam

TheChizler wrote: »

Any idea what kind of questions they are? The piece didn't mention.

Certainly something that would seem a significant question to my mind....

silverharp

From the syllabus

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiL3tGDrprMAhVBvRoKHc6TDO0QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcurriculumonline.ie%2Fgetmedia%2F5244872c-9437-476e-879a-eff40a41795c%2FSCSEC05_Arabic_Syllabus_English.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEVFTiYUgpVt7ZgH0OApQl43uWhcw&sig2=k0f8qGA05_BCaNauRcS0fw&bvm=bv.119745492,d.bGg

Part 2
Part 2 will consist of three sections. The first section,
to be answered by all candidates, will comprise an
extract from the Koran, followed by two questions.
The second and third sections, between which the
candidates will be asked to choose, will consist respectively
of a portion of classical Arabic verse, followed
by two questions, and an extract from a work of
modern Arabic prose, followed by 2 questions. In
both cases, one question will bear directly on the text
presented, while the other question will be of a more
contextual nature.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

From the syllabus

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiL3tGDrprMAhVBvRoKHc6TDO0QFggbMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcurriculumonline.ie%2Fgetmedia%2F5244872c-9437-476e-879a-eff40a41795c%2FSCSEC05_Arabic_Syllabus_English.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEVFTiYUgpVt7ZgH0OApQl43uWhcw&sig2=k0f8qGA05_BCaNauRcS0fw&bvm=bv.119745492,d.bGg

That doesn't say what kind of questions they are?