Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

Pherekydes

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

I seriously do believe if people don't want to be engaged by any christian ethos shouldn't be allowed near a church at all, dont get married at a church and dont celebrate christmas as after all you're celebrating a christian tradition

How many times does it have to be said that these Christian traditions have just been appropriated from pagan festivals?

Canadel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know have you ever seen this episode of South Park?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvin%27_Marvin_in_Space

Nope.

But I have been meaning to watch Southpark from the start. A few of the newer episodes turned me off it slightly though. Genius at it best however.

Absolam

Canadel wrote: »

We finally arrive at the truth. It's only rational to continue to exercise that dominance to the biased observer. That is exactly why separation of church and state exists. For the situation whereby 99.9999% of people belong to and are in favour of a state religion. It exists to protect not only the 0.0001%, but also the 99.9999% if the 0.0001% was the state religious power.

No; it's rational to expect that anyone who exercises dominance will continue to want to exercise dominance. Hardly a momentous revelation of truth.....
And let's not forget, flying entirely in the face of your proposition that in a rational world, religious people would be the strongest proponents of separation of church and state, never mind atheists or anti-theists.
I guess in 'arriving at the truth' we managed to change your mind

Absolam

Canadel wrote: »

I can't think of anything more Christian.

No? What about proselytising to ensure more people go to Heaven? That's got to be more Christian than supporting the creation of a system that could steer people away from accepting Christ into their hearts and being damned for all eternity as a result, don't you think?

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

How many times does it have to be said that these Christian traditions have just been appropriated from pagan festivals?

That doesn't mean they're not Christian traditions though, does it? Nor that you have to be Christian to engage with them, or their secular / pagan / Abrahamic analogues.

Mexcanelo

I think it's ridiculous that in 2016 Ireland. Certain businesses are forced to close their doors in the name of a religion.

Canadel

Absolam wrote: »

No; it's rational to expect that anyone who exercises dominance to continue to want to exercise dominance. Hardly a momentous revelation of truth.....
And let's not forget, flying entirely in the face of your proposition that in a rational world, religious people would be the strongest proponents of separation of church and state, never mind atheists or anti-theists.
I guess in 'arriving at the truth' we managed to change your mind

I'm going to start calling you the word magician.

I don't think it is entirely rational to assume that. And it's certainly not right.

Would you also submit then that atheists have a higher sense of morality and reasoning ability than religious believers, considering that atheists would not favour an atheist state, but rather a secular one?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you not think that's self-perpetuating though?

Have to get the children baptised to give them a better chance to get into a school => Children get into school because they have been baptised over other children that haven't been baptised => School maintains the religious criteria for enrolment.

If enough people refuse to have their children baptised, then Government would have no choice but to act, as the State has a duty to provide for children's education.

I agree. My children have not been baptised, even though this disadvantaged them with regard to enrolment in every single school within reach of where we live.

Absolam

Canadel wrote: »

I'm going to start calling you the word magician.
I don't think it is entirely rational to assume that. And it's certainly not right.

That's... interesting? Anyways, what do you think is irrational about expecting someone who exercises dominance over others to want to continue to do so? For instance, historically have more people in positions of power sought to extend their power, or sought to give it up?

And what does 'right' have to do with it?

Canadel wrote: »

Would you also submit then that atheists have a higher sense of morality and reasoning ability than religious believers, considering that atheists would not favour an atheist state, but rather a secular one?

I wouldn't; are you submitting it? What basis (preferably testable, rather than belief based) would you provide for such a submission, considering that simply favouring a secular state isn't evidence of any kind of morality or reasoning ability at all?

Gallagher1

Separation of Church and State, why does it matter?

1) Education. The thought that in a first world country which is relatively well educated a child can be turned away from up to 85% of State funded schools due to the fact he/she isn't baptised into the Catholic church is simply outrageous.

I left primary school just over 7/8 years ago and even then I could count on 1 hand how many times a year we would do genuine Science material in class during the year. On the other hand Religion was rammed down our throats every single day, and it wasn't learning religious cultures around the world which might have been interesting, it was sheer indoctrination to Catholicism. The Church has no place in the primary education of a child in my eyes and I feel so much time of my primary education was wasted on fairytales when everyone could have been learning something useful (Basic cooking lessons/ Life skills/ More time towards Irish/Maths)

2) Some Businesses have to close on Friday because of a religious event? Ridiculous. If the Government were in anyway shrewd about wanting to aid the so-called "dying pub trade" they would get rid of this absurd Catholic rule for what could be one of the busiest days in the year for Pub owners. Why should tourists/the public in general not be allowed head for a few drinks with friends/family in a Bar on Good Friday?

You could ramble on about abortion laws in this country and their links with the RCC along with impacts of them (X-Case for example) but this is the wrong forum for debate.

Also, any State that is willing to be associated with (and not be fully separated from) the world's largest and most powerful ring of Paedophiles who caused countless families misery for a multitude of reasons over the years is not a State that belongs in the 21st century.

galljga1

I am playing cards tonight so will be having a drink or two. I may even have a drink during the day if the fancy takes me in my local hotel bar. It wouldn't bother me either way whether or not I have a drink but closing most alcohol serving premises is ridiculous. Let them open and those who observe the good Friday traditions can chose what to do.

Teaching religion in schools should be done in a similar manner to a history class. Remove the prayer and doctrine elements, teach the history of all major religions. Leave the rest up to the parents and church (or whatever) outside school hours.

Re the whole paedophile episode, I cannot understand how so many people over generations buried their heads in the sand and let it continue, not just the clergy but society in general: our mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts. How can people stay associated with this organisation? That includes the oft referred to "good" priests.

One eyed Jack

galljga1 wrote: »

Teaching religion in schools should be done in a similar manner to a history class. Remove the prayer and doctrine elements, teach the history of all major religions. Leave the rest up to the parents and church (or whatever) outside school hours.

That'd be ok if the school wasn't a religious ethos school, but it is, and that's why you can't remove the prayer and doctrine elements, because it would then no longer be a religious ethos school. If parents who didn't want to, didn't do all the baptism and enrolling their children in religious ethos schools, then the religious ethos schools would receive that much less finding that is provided for the education of their children, the schools would be that much smaller, and the Government would have to act to provide for the education of those children who are not enrolled in a religious ethos school by providing more suitable schools.

Re the whole paedophile episode, I cannot understand how so many people over generations buried their heads in the sand and let it continue, not just the clergy but society in general: our mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts. How can people stay associated with this organisation? That includes the oft referred to "good" priests.

I've never believed that people buried their heads in the sand, I believe they knew what was going on and even encouraged and promoted it themselves, because that's the way society functioned at the time.

How can people stay associated with the organisation? Because there's nothing wrong with most people involved in the organisation, just the people who abuse other people, and those people are very much in a minority, that the vast majority of people involved in the organisation are making sure they never have the opportunity to commit the same atrocities they did in the past, and have people tar everyone associated with the organisation with the same brush.

iguana

galljga1 wrote: »

Teaching religion in schools should be done in a similar manner to a history class. Remove the prayer and doctrine elements, teach the history of all major religions. Leave the rest up to the parents and church (or whatever) outside school hours.

I've been thinking about this a lot since I became a parent and even more since Tuesday morning and the latest terrorist attack in Europe. Schools like Educate Together teach about religion rather than indoctrinate in a single religion but that really is just the lesser of two evils because they don't really teach about all religions. They essentially celebrate the best bits of all religions which is a really fun thing to do from a secular perspective. Hey kids, today is hanukkah, lets play with dreidel and see who can win the most chocolate coins while I teach a sanitised lesson about how hundreds of years ago Jews invented this game as a hidden way to teach their forbidden texts. Or today is Eid, lets eat these delicious ma'mools while I explain how the meat for the feast is distributed among the poor. All great, a little education and celebration of the beliefs of some of little Johnnie's classmates.

But from what I've heard from friends I know with children in ET schools there is very little education about the negative sides of religions. No real discussion of the pain caused to little baby boys during their Bris. No discussion of the horrible suffering experienced in the slaughter of animals for Halal meat. Very little discussion about the fact that you might be best buddies on the playground but your opposing religious beliefs mean your best friend is being told weekly that you deserve to burn in hell. Very little discussion about the deep abuses of power that religion allows. A discussion in the Limerick School Project about the Charlie Hebdo shootings had the school apologise to the 'outraged' family of a muslim pupil in the class.

Religion isn't taught about accurately because only the positive aspects can be gone into in real depth. The bad parts might be referenced on occasion but not in any real way because it can and likely will be deemed offensive. So we give credence to the absurd. We have a situation where instead of being able to respect that some people have religious belief. We have to respect the belief. Even if the belief is blatantly absurd when subjected to critical thought. Even when the belief damages the lives and health of the believer. Even when the belief damages the lives and health of the non-believer who is unlucky enough to be in a country where stupid beliefs have influenced the law.

Should religion be taught in schools? Absolutely. It has influenced too much of history and still influences too many aspects of today's world to be ignored. It's an important part of understanding how the world has come to be how it is, how it continues to be as it is and how the future may turn out. But that can no more be done by what I have seen being done in ET schools, than it can by indoctrination based schooling.

wokingvoter

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This is off topic, but in relation to the Buncrana tragedy, if the primary school curriculum substituted some of the time spent on religious indoctrination with compulsory swimming/lifesaving/water safety from junior infants level to sixth class, tragedies involving water would be far less common.

The amount of Irish Adults who have no idea how to swim or how to respond if they or someone else gets into trouble in water is astounding, but most are well versed in how to genuflect and recite the rosary.

I am not meaning to criticise anyone involved in that tragedy, I am criticising the way education is prioritised. Water safety is a basic life skill, and in my opinion should be taught along side reading and writing, and prioritised over indoctrinating children with useless nonsense. Not all parents have the resources and funds available to pay for swimming/life saving lessons, and as a result a ridiculous amount of people reach adulthood with no skills in this area.

How unhappy does a person need to be to take advantage of a heartbreaking tragedy to point score
And you seriously suggest that religion classes were prioritised over swimming lessons in this country and that thus, RCC can take its share of blame in this incident
And nobody here has the balls to challenge you
Wow kiwi wow

One eyed Jack

iguana wrote: »

I've been thinking about this a lot since I became a parent and even more since Tuesday morning and the latest terrorist attack in Europe. Schools like Educate Together teach about religion rather than indoctrinate in a single religion but that really is just the lesser of two evils because they don't really teach about all religions. They essentially celebrate the best bits of all religions which is a really fun thing to do from a secular perspective. Hey kids, today is hanukkah, lets play with dreidel and see who can win the most chocolate coins while I teach a sanitised lesson about how hundreds of years ago Jews invented this game as a hidden way to teach their forbidden texts. Or today is Eid, lets eat these delicious ma'mools while I explain how the meat for the feast is distributed among the poor. All great, a little education and celebration of the beliefs of some of little Johnnie's classmates.

But from what I've heard from friends I know with children in ET schools there is very little education about the negative sides of religions. No real discussion of the pain caused to little baby boys during their Bris. No discussion of the horrible suffering experienced in the slaughter of animals for Halal meat. Very little discussion about the fact that you might be best buddies on the playground but your opposing religious beliefs mean your best friend is being told weekly that you deserve to burn in hell. Very little discussion about the deep abuses of power that religion allows. A discussion in the Limerick School Project about the Charlie Hebdo shootings had the school apologise to the 'outraged' family of a muslim pupil in the class.

That wasn't quite what happened though in that particular case. The school prides itself on it's recognition of diversity and so on, but whatever the teacher was thinking holding up the magazine in front of the class with the depiction of their prophet Muhammad on the cover, with two Muslim children in the class, and then the principal engages in arse covering mode talking about liberty and all the rest of it, that was bound to make an unfortunate error in judgement a whole lot worse.

Religion isn't taught about accurately because only the positive aspects can be gone into in real depth. The bad parts might be referenced on occasion but not in any real way because it can and likely will be deemed offensive. So we give credence to the absurd. We have a situation where instead of being able to respect that some people have religious belief. We have to respect the belief. Even if the belief is blatantly absurd when subjected to critical thought. Even when the belief damages the lives and health of the believer. Even when the belief damages the lives and health of the non-believer who is unlucky enough to be in a country where stupid beliefs have influenced the law.

Should religion be taught in schools? Absolutely. It has influenced too much of history and still influences too many aspects of today's world to be ignored. It's an important part of understanding how the world has come to be how it is, how it continues to be as it is and how the future may turn out. But that can no more be done by what I have seen being done in ET schools, than it can by indoctrination based schooling.

As I read your post, I was thinking you were putting forward an argument for religion being kept outside of the school walls, and that much I would have agreed with, in a State run school. I think the ET model has failed in trying to be all things to all people. It's just a mixed bag of ideologies and barely skimming the surface of each one. It was intended to accommodate parents who do not identify as Roman Catholic, but the ET schools now have a majority of children whose parents identify as Roman Catholic!!

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't quite what happened though in that particular case. The school prides itself on it's recognition of diversity and so on, but whatever the teacher was thinking holding up the magazine in front of the class with the depiction of their prophet Muhammad on the cover, with two Muslim children in the class, and then the principal engages in arse covering mode talking about liberty and all the rest of it, that was bound to make an unfortunate error in judgement a whole lot worse.





As I read your post, I was thinking you were putting forward an argument for religion being kept outside of the school walls, and that much I would have agreed with, in a State run school. I think the ET model has failed in trying to be all things to all people. It's just a mixed bag of ideologies and barely skimming the surface of each one. It was intended to accommodate parents who do not identify as Roman Catholic, but the ET schools now have a majority of children whose parents identify as Roman Catholic!!

Educate together doesn't discriminate, that's a major part of its ethos so it can't send Catholic kids away. Besides its not always the case that Catholic parents want their kids in a Catholic school. ET is not just a no faith formation school, it's entirely different to a lot of Catholic schools, no uniform, teachers called by their first name, no desks ( in my son's school they only use desks for writing ). Personally I don't think it's failed, its given parents like me a chance to have their child educated in a model that is similar to how we live at home. That wouldn't be an option in my local Catholic school.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Educate together doesn't discriminate, that's a major part of its ethos so it can't send Catholic kids away. Besides its not always the case that Catholic parents want their kids in a Catholic school. ET is not just a no faith formation school, it's entirely different to a lot of Catholic schools, no uniform, teachers called by their first name, no desks ( in my son's school they only use desks for writing ). Personally I don't think it's failed, its given parents like me a chance to have their child educated in a model that is similar to how we live at home. That wouldn't be an option in my local Catholic school.

That's the problem though, that's why I said it's failed in it's efforts to be all things to all people. It was meant to accommodate families like your own who aren't RC, as they hadn't expected parents who identify as RC would want to send their children to a school that didn't have a RC ethos.

The problem is now that because they don't discriminate, the schools are mostly filled with the children of parents who identify as RC, and children who aren't RC still can't get in - their parents don't want to enrol them in an RC school, and they can't get them into an ET school, leaving them in a rock and a hard place situation.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the problem though, that's why I said it's failed in it's efforts to be all things to all people. It was meant to accommodate families like your own who aren't RC, as they hadn't expected parents who identify as RC would want to send their children to a school that didn't have a RC ethos.

The problem is now that because they don't discriminate, the schools are mostly filled with the children of parents who identify as RC, and children who aren't RC still can't get in - their parents don't want to enrol them in an RC school, and they can't get them into an ET school, leaving them in a rock and a hard place situation.

Depends on the area, where I am Catholic children would be in the minority, it's mostly Muslim and other Christian denominations. I can see how in another area it might be different and I get your point, its a bit crazy to have a non Catholic child in a Catholic school because a Catholic took an ET place but everyone should have an equal chance of an ET place, not just those who aren't Catholic. You can't run a school with an ethos of equality and then discriminate.

iguana

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I read your post, I was thinking you were putting forward an argument for religion being kept outside of the school walls, and that much I would have agreed with, in a State run school.

You can't teach numerous subjects without also teaching a solid understanding of various religions. Just imagine; Henry VIII wanted to remarry as Katherine of Aragon had not produced a male heir who lived past infancy. But he couldn't because........... reasons. Being the king he changed the law and........ other things to suit himself and declared his marriage to Katherine annulled and his daughter Mary a royal bastard. Then he married Anne Boleyn. This caused uproar throughout Europe and at home as it obviously upset the balance of power in Europe, undermining Spanish influence in England, making the Howard family, who Boleyn was part of, very powerful and p'ing off rival familys like the Seymours. But also other................. major reasons which would go on to have lasting repercussions for centuries but we can't talk about.

People need to know about religion in order to further their understanding of the world's past, present and (at a minimum) near future. And if we expect schools to provide children with an educational foundation, that has to include religion. But it has to be an honest (albeit age appropriate) education about religion. Not a lovely look at the best bits and a promotion of the idea that beliefs in themselves need to be respected.

Gallagher1

galljga1 wrote: »

Re the whole paedophile episode, I cannot understand how so many people over generations buried their heads in the sand and let it continue, not just the clergy but society in general: our mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts. How can people stay associated with this organisation? That includes the oft referred to "good" priests.

Could you imagine if the German people today just 'buried their heads in the sand' regarding the Nazi regime and didn't wholeheartedly denounce them and separate Nazi indoctrination from Education/Healthcare/Society in general?

Before people think I'm being sensationalist because the Nazis Killed 6 million Jews, the Catholic Church's crimes in its long history (albeit a lot longer than Nazi Rule) are in the same category of heinousness.

One eyed Jack

iguana wrote: »

You can't teach numerous subjects without also teaching a solid understanding of various religions. Just imagine; Henry VIII wanted to remarry as Katherine of Aragon had not produced a male heir who lived past infancy. But he couldn't because........... reasons. Being the king he changed the law and........ other things to suit himself and declared his marriage to Katherine annulled and his daughter Mary a royal bastard. Then he married Anne Boleyn. This caused uproar throughout Europe and at home as it obviously upset the balance of power in Europe, undermining Spanish influence in England, making the Howard family, who Boleyn was part of, very powerful and p'ing off rival familys like the Seymours. But also other................. major reasons which would go on to have lasting repercussions for centuries but we can't talk about.

People need to know about religion in order to further their understanding of the world's past, present and (at a minimum) near future. And if we expect schools to provide children with an educational foundation, that has to include religion. But it has to be an honest (albeit age appropriate) education about religion. Not a lovely look at the best bits and a promotion of the idea that beliefs in themselves need to be respected.

Yeah I see what you mean

I wasn't thinking that extreme though that it couldn't even be mentioned, but mention of it of course in a historical context would be fine. It would more be the amount of time spent indulging the beliefs and traditions of the various religions, spending a considerable amount of school time critiquing their history, philosophy and politics and so on - time that could be spent on the basics like reading, writing and mathematics.

I dunno either tbh about teachers being given the responsibility to introduce the negatives of the religions. I know you mean it to present a broader picture, but there'd undoubtedly be complaints from some parents that their children are coming home from school traumatised! :pac:

There's a great programme on weekday mornings before school time, I think it's called "Horrible Histories", the young lad watches it, I'd love to see something like that done in schools to bring history to life for the students in a way they can really relate to and enjoy.

I think though it's important for children to go outside the curriculum in their own time to get a broader understanding of what they're learning about in school, that's why even though he goes to an RC school, I've introduced my young lad to a couple of other major world religions in our own time.

Absolam

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Could you imagine if the German people today just 'buried their heads in the sand' regarding the Nazi regime and didn't wholeheartedly denounce them and separate Nazi indoctrination from Education/Healthcare/Society in general?

Before people think I'm being sensationalist because the Nazis Killed 6 million Jews, the Catholic Church's crimes in its long history (albeit a lot longer than Nazi Rule) are in the same category of heinousness.

I'm sure there's a name for this kind of argument...

iguana

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't thinking that extreme though that it couldn't even be mentioned, but mention of it of course in a historical context would be fine. It would more be the amount of time spent indulging the beliefs and traditions of the various religions, spending a considerable amount of school time critiquing their history, philosophy and politics and so on - time that could be spent on the basics like reading, writing and mathematics.

Religion would have to be more than mentioned. It would have to be taught about to varying degrees of depth in order to give proper context to history/geography/civics lessons. For example, you have to understand the idea of transubstantiation in order to understand why the position that the communion bread is just bread was so revolutionary.

I dunno either tbh about teachers being given the responsibility to introduce the negatives of the religions. I know you mean it to present a broader picture, but there'd undoubtedly be complaints from some parents that their children are coming home from school traumatised! :pac:

I don't think that there needs to be any sort of class on the negatives of religion. Because I don't think religion should be a class of it's own. Education about religion should happen when it is an necessary part of another subject and then it must be an honest assessment. But if religion classes are taught, then only presenting minimal, fairly neutral facts along with lots of positive lessons about feast days and celebrations it teaches a false lesson and that is worse than teaching no lesson at all.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

Educate together doesn't discriminate, that's a major part of its ethos so it can't send Catholic kids away. Besides its not always the case that Catholic parents want their kids in a Catholic school. ET is not just a no faith formation school, it's entirely different to a lot of Catholic schools, no uniform, teachers called by their first name, no desks ( in my son's school they only use desks for writing ). Personally I don't think it's failed, its given parents like me a chance to have their child educated in a model that is similar to how we live at home. That wouldn't be an option in my local Catholic school.

I can't stand the way children in my sons school seem to be expected to refer to teachers as 'Miss' and 'Sir'. Not even Ms, Mrs and Mr followed by surname, but just 'Miss' and 'Sir'. First names much better.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I can't stand the way children in my sons school seem to be expected to refer to teachers as 'Miss' and 'Sir'. Not even Ms, Mrs and Mr followed by surname, but just 'Miss' and 'Sir'. First names much better.

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

eviltwin

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

Cause students in more formal schools are never disrespectful :rolleyes: It's not a lack of respect if everyone is okay with it. I hate being referred to as Ms , I much prefer people call me by my first name, it's more friendly imo. My kid may call his teachers by their first name but he has the up most respect for them.

lazygal

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

I call my parents by their names. I'm capable of treating people with respect without using titles. I respect my work colleagues without calling them Miss or Sir.

Cabaal

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

So calling a person by their name is a lack of respect? Nonsense,

Talking of calling people by Mr, Miss etc, my wife a few years back did a Fetac course, the course was being done by a local school teacher and she started the class and requesting that everyone must call her "Miss". Now keep in mind that most of the people in the course were 25-50 years of age.

The only people that called her "Miss" were the people fresh out of the same school the teacher was in a few months previously. The rest refused....she wasn't happy.

The same teacher also wanted to stop the class at 12 for the angelus every day and pray, again people told here that wasn't happening. Again she wasn't impressed.

Not calling a person Mr or Miss is not disrespectful if you still use their proper name, after all if ti was then that must mean I show no respect for my boss
:rolleyes:

The story above also shows the importance of separating church and state, here we had tax payer money being used to facilitate a Fetac course and we had a teacher that wanted to waste class time with prayers.

wokingvoter

lazygal wrote: »

I call my parents by their names. I'm capable of treating people with respect without using titles. I respect my work colleagues without calling them Miss or Sir.

This is very interesting. Do you have kids? Do they call your parents Paddy and Mary for example?

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Cabaal wrote: »

So calling a person by their name is a lack of respect? Nonsense,

Talking of calling people by Mr, Miss etc, my wife a few years back did a Fetac course, the course was being done by a local school teacher and she started the class and requesting that everyone must call her "Miss". Now keep in mind that most of the people in the course were 25-50 years of age.

The only people that called her "Miss" were the people fresh out of the same school the teacher was in a few months previously. The rest refused....she wasn't happy.

The same teacher also wanted to stop the class at 12 for the angelus every day and pray, again people told here that wasn't happening. Again she wasn't impressed.

Not calling a person Mr or Miss is not disrespectful if you still use their proper name, after all if ti was then that must mean I show no respect for my boss
:rolleyes:

The story above also shows the importance of separating church and state, here we had tax payer money being used to facilitate a Fetac course and we had a teacher that wanted to waste class time with prayers.

We're talking about children here, who're not old enough yet to be fully responsible to be calling adults by their first names and not Sir/Miss, once they are mature and also by the teachers permission that certainly beens they're permitted to call by their first names.

Whoever mentioned 'Work Colleagues' etc thats a total different story, of course you wouldn't call them by Mr/Sir , thats common sense really..

Also if you call your parents by their first names then ye weren't brought up the right way and weren't taught manners at all