Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

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:

Well.... it kind of is. Using a persons given name without their permission is disrespectful; it's up to them whether or not you can use it. In a formal setting (which a learning environment may or may not be, depending on the person in charge of it), it's not unreasonable to expect formalities to be observed, therefore titles and surnames. I suspect your boss told you you could use their first name, at very least by introducing themselves by it? You might be surprised by how many workplaces do still observe formalities.

So using a persons first name is not disrespectful if they allow you to do so, otherwise it is. Using someones surname without the honorific is pretty much always disrespectful... even at Eton.

Parents of a particular background are inclined to want their children to use their names, and that's fair enough; it's up to the parents whether they permit their children to do so.

One eyed Jack

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.

How do I put this... (as politely as possible I suppose), but I'm rather cynical of that whole FETAC story. Fine, you may claim it to be true and all, grand, but I find it incredible to believe (and we both know I have some incredible beliefs of my own ), maybe it was the part about insisting on an adult learning course that she be called Miss, but the part about stopping class for the angelus? Come on now, there's far fetched, and there's almost divine exaggeration!

It's easy understand where LuckyDude is coming from, and anyone living in Ireland (in fact any country in the world really) at least the last 30 years, would be aware of the idea at least, that most people do not call their parents by their first names. Their parents are their parents, not their mates, or their teachers, or their boss.

I know it's not a thing that started off in ET schools, and one of my teachers back in a Christian Brothers School used insist we could call him by his nick-name 'Chippy', but it was all I could do to resist the urge to call him 'Imbecile' instead. It's an informality that some people are comfortable with, some people aren't. I've never been comfortable with it myself, but it is what it is, and if a person wants to be referred to by their given title, whatever that title may be, I don't think society is going to fall apart at the seams.

What it has to do with secularism, or separation of Church and State though, is beyond my understanding.

wokingvoter

My 18 year old LC daughter and her friends have just emerged after a late night last night
Some of their teachers are really only 4/5 years older than them but they're still Ms Ryan and Ms Maher etc
I've asked them how would they feel if they were told that they could address them by their Christian names
Without hesitation there was a collective unanimous "eeewwww" reaction
"Teachers are teachers. They're not friends. Oh no that would be weird in a creepy kind of way"
My daughter is a young adult full of confidence and plenty of self esteem but she still refers to her primary school teachers from 10+ years ago as Ms Jordan etc
She also addresses her GP as Dr. I didn't tell her that the GP must be addressed as Dr. I think it's important to her that her GP studied for 7 years in order to be in a position to decide whether or not she needs an antibiotic so she's Dr. not Colette

One eyed Jack

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

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 [/b]

Whoaaaa there horsey!! :pac:

That is absolutely, and categorically untrue, and an absolutely horrible judgement to pass on anyone's parents. I was with you while you were taking heat for your own standards, but when you pass judgement on other people like that?

You're on your own there mate!

eviltwin

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

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

I call my mother by her first name and my mother in law too. In fact I can't remember the last time I addressed anyone by Mr or Ms. My kids call adults by their first name cause its their name, what else would you call someone. If I met someone fussy enough to want to be called by their title I would oblige but I don't seem to meet anyone like that.

Tasden

wokingvoter wrote: »

My 18 year old LC daughter and her friends have just emerged after a late night last night
Some of their teachers are really only 4/5 years older than them but they're still Ms Ryan and Ms Maher etc
I've asked them how would they feel if they were told that they could address them by their Christian names
Without hesitation there was a collective unanimous "eeewwww" reaction
"Teachers are teachers. They're not friends. Oh no that would be weird in a creepy kind of way"
My daughter is a young adult full of confidence and plenty of self esteem but she still refers to her primary school teachers from 10+ years ago as Ms Jordan etc
She also addresses her GP as Dr. I didn't tell her that the GP must be addressed as Dr. I think it's important to her that her GP studied for 7 years in order to be in a position to decide whether or not she needs an antibiotic so she's Dr. not Colette

The majority of GPs are referred to as Dr. Last name. It's on the surgery listings, the door, the prescription, the receptionist will use it and so do the patients. In my experience, it's rarely a "respecting the 7 years of study" and more just what is the norm when it comes to referring to your GP.

wokingvoter

Tasden wrote: »

The majority of GPs are referred to as Dr. Last name. It's on the surgery listings, the door, the prescription, the receptionist will use it and so do the patients. In my experience, it's rarely a "respecting the 7 years of study" and more just what is the norm when it comes to referring to your GP.

Actually I call my GP Paul. And if you ring for an appointment the receptionist will say" I'll put you down for 3pm with Paul"
Not even a second name, never mind the title.

Tasden

wokingvoter wrote: »

Actually I call my GP Paul. And if you ring for an appointment the receptionist will say" I'll put you down for 3pm with Paul"
Not even a second name, never mind the title.

How rude of the receptionist in that case, must have been dragged up :pac:

wokingvoter

Tasden wrote: »

How rude of the receptionist in that case, must have been dragged up :pac:

I never said anybody was rude, badly brought up
Your confusing me with someone else

Tasden

wokingvoter wrote: »

I never said anybody was rude, badly brought up
Your confusing me with someone else

Chill out, was just a joke

lazygal

wokingvoter wrote: »

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

My kids call us mummy and daddy, as we did until we were teenagers when we gradually switched to using their first names. They also call my parents by their names. No disrespect whatsoever.

wokingvoter

lazygal wrote: »

My kids call us mummy and daddy, as we did until we were teenagers when we gradually switched to using their first names. They also call my parents by their names. No disrespect whatsoever.

I don't think it's disrespectful. I think I'm just lazy, lazygal, if my daughter were to shout from the door "I'm just going to Mary's! " instead of " I'm just going to Granny's!" Then I would have to shout back"Mary who?" Instead of "ok!" Then she'd have to retort " Mary your mother!"
Too much bother
Likewise if I'm making the dinner and she's standing there moaning as she does about her teachers ( they don't appreciate the fact that she gets up out of bed to go down to that school, it's outrageous) I would be at a complete loss if she was referring to them by their Christian names. Maybe it's just me.

lazygal

It's really not that difficult. I call all my myriad work colleagues by their first names and we all seem to know who we're referring to. Likewise what's the difference between remembering a first and surname of a teacher? There could be several Miss Murphys or Mr. Kellys, for example. There's something wrong with a school if it needs surnames to instil respect for everyone.

wokingvoter

lazygal wrote: »

It's really not that difficult. I call all my myriad work colleagues by their first names and we all seem to know who we're referring to. Likewise what's the difference between remembering a first and surname of a teacher? There could be several Miss Murphys or Mr. Kellys, for example. There's something wrong with a school if it needs surnames to instil respect for everyone.

If there's something wrong with a school where teachers are addressed by their surnames then you are going to be restricting your kids to a tiny tiny choice in where they are educated
It's pretty much a given in I'd imagine 99.9% of state run schools, and most private schools in Ireland. Once again I don't think it's about instilling respect I think that children really like "order". They don't like chaos.
The teacher is not my friend. She's my teacher. Aoife is my friend so I can call her Aoife. Ms Ryan has a job to do. Her job is to help me to learn. So I'll call her Ms Ryan and I'll call my friend Aoife.

lazygal

The Montessori my children attend has perfect order without the use of Miss. It wouldn't affect my decision on where to send them to school but I certainly wouldn't pay much attention to an insistence on teachers being called sir or miss. And I'd question why it was required as part of discipline, when its a very old-fashioned practice with no real reason behind it other than tradition.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

It's really not that difficult. I call all my myriad work colleagues by their first names and we all seem to know who we're referring to. Likewise what's the difference between remembering a first and surname of a teacher? There could be several Miss Murphys or Mr. Kellys, for example. There's something wrong with a school if it needs surnames to instil respect for everyone.

Is it the fact that it's an acknowledgement that the teacher is in a position of authority that's the problem with it?

As you say yourself, it's really not that difficult, it's more simply a social formality is all. I personally don't like the familiarity among students and teachers in the ET model, but I wouldn't say that was a fundamental problem with the school model (as eviltwin points out it's a new and very different model from the traditional education, nothing fundamentally wrong with it, just not my bag), but I don't see the problem with the traditional more formal model of education either?

More variety and choice are good for people, but arguing that the outcomes of one choice are better than the other, well, isn't that the fundamental point of personal choice? That each and every person is entitled to decide for themselves, free from the judgement of other people?

At least that's what I thought was the fundamental point of secularism anyway?

wokingvoter

lazygal wrote: »

The Montessori my children attend has perfect order without the use of Miss. It wouldn't affect my decision on where to send them to school but I certainly wouldn't pay much attention to an insistence on teachers being called sir or miss. And I'd question why it was required as part of discipline, when its a very old-fashioned practice with no real reason behind it other than tradition.

I think that there will be many school rules that you don't agree with. I haven't agreed with some of the rules in the three schools my child has attended(though I've never verbalised this to her) but because she has been happy and has learned much and because I accept that when 600 teenage girls are gathered together in a building for 7 hours then it's best for them if there are rules, the main one being don't be a pr**k.
If you object to your child being required to address the teacher formally, then how would you feel about another parent arguing that their child should be allowed to shout and run in the corridors, I mean , it's rather old fashioned too. Some children express themselves by being loud and boisterous?
The fact is that if 600 girls changing classrooms at half ten all run shouting from room to room it could soon result in someone getting hurt
Good luck with your school search, I think you might need it

Cabaal

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

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

You appear to be experiencing problems with formatting in your posts, maybe next time remove the bold tag. Then I'll attempt to read your post.
:rolleyes:

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do I put this... (as politely as possible I suppose), but I'm rather cynical of that whole FETAC story. Fine, you may claim it to be true and all, grand, but I find it incredible to believe (and we both know I have some incredible beliefs of my own ), maybe it was the part about insisting on an adult learning course that she be called Miss, but the part about stopping class for the angelus? Come on now, there's far fetched, and there's almost divine exaggeration!

You can be skeptical all you want, but your posts are utter nonsense.
I've previously dealt with the teacher in question first hand and my wife had class with her for the bones of a year, I know it to be factual because as well as hearing it from my wife I heard it from other girls in the class. I know what the teacher is like.

You may try to claim it never happened, but then doesn't mean it didn't. Your skeptical posts are utterly pathetic at this stage and explain alot about religious people and their doubting of stuff ion the past. Your type of viewpoint has alot to answer for in this country....a worrying amount of stuff.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

You can be skeptical all you want, but your posts are utter nonsense.
I've previously dealt with the teacher in question first hand and my wife had class with her for the bones of a year, I know it to be factual because as well as hearing it from my wife I heard it from other girls in the class. I know what the teacher is like.

You may try to claim it never happened, but then doesn't mean it didn't. Your skeptical posts are utterly pathetic at this stage and explain alot about religious people and their doubting of stuff ion the past. Your type of viewpoint has alot to answer for in this country....a worrying amount of stuff.

I don't think my posts explain anything about other people who are religious, I don't think they even explain anything about religion. I'm simply skeptical of your claims is all. I can't contradict them obviously, nor would I try to, but there's no reason I can't be skeptical of your claims and yet still that would offer no insight into anything other than I being skeptical of your claims.

One would think that in a forum of skeptics, that skepticism and questioning of those things which are incredible would be a welcome trait. It appears not when they happen to be on the receiving end. I don't think that's a trait peculiar to people of either a religious or non-religious persuasion though.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do I put this... (as politely as possible I suppose), but I'm rather cynical of that whole FETAC story. Fine, you may claim it to be true and all, grand, but I find it incredible to believe (and we both know I have some incredible beliefs of my own ), maybe it was the part about insisting on an adult learning course that she be called Miss, but the part about stopping class for the angelus? Come on now, there's far fetched, and there's almost divine exaggeration!

I suppose it might be true, but I agree. I taught FETAC and none of the staff was ever called anything other than their first name. Well, actually, thinking about that, they might have been called various things, but to their face it would be first name. And all classes were definitely secular - I would think there would have been at least a few loud protests at a teacher trying to introduce religion into a class. However someone who had been teaching for a few years in a religious school would possibly do it by default, if they were sufficiently lacking in imagination and cop on.

What it has to do with secularism, or separation of Church and State though, is beyond my understanding.

Agreed.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I suppose it might be true, but I agree. I taught FETAC and none of the staff was ever called anything other than their first name.

Oddly, as a FETAC student my course addressed all our teachers by their titles and surnames, except one, our guidance teacher, who preferred her first name. Perhaps the level of formality simply varies, broadly, by establishment.

Personally I don't think it's a particularly old fashioned idea, but I have noticed that some people find the idea of being respectful akin to deference, or even obsequience, particularly in Ireland. Perhaps it's a hangover of our ancient troubled past, or a feature of our millennial hippy kids embracing individualism.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Why should the muslim religion (or any other) have a veto on what may be discussed in an Irish secular school?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should the muslim religion (or any other) have a veto on what may be discussed in an Irish secular school?

I would never suggest that it should tbh. But, here's the kicker -

If the ethos of the school is this:


What is Meant by "Ethos" in and Educate Together environment?

I refer first to the definitions of ethos already mentioned at this conference


"The character, sentiment, or disposition of a community or people, considered as a natural endowment; the spirit which actuates manners and customs; also, the characteristic tone or genius of an institution or social organisation. "The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement" the dominant pervading spirit or character of a place or institution"

Whilst these seem appropriate in many social situations and organisations, they would appear too general and perhaps almost ethereal for many in an Educate Together school.

A definition, which would be more understandable, would be: -


"The ethical principles and educational policies upon which the school strives to base all its activities."

Not only this, a parent or teacher in an Educate Together school would expect that this ethos would be expressed in a written form. They would look for it in the mission statement of the Board of Management and centrally in the memo and articles of the limited company that carries out the responsibility of the patron.

(taken from the ET website, underline my own)

Then they have issued themselves with a veto on anything which contravenes the fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture or movement.

I wouldn't argue that the discussion of liberty contravened anyone's fundamental values, but when the teacher made the error (not for a minute would I think they did it on purpose, I think their intentions were well intended, but it was thoughtless, not malicious) of showing the CH magazine at the front of the class, with the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, that was in contravention of their own ethos.

It was simply an unfortunate error in judgement, but the Principal made a bad situation worse by trying to argue that liberty was the more salient point. It's never a good idea to try grandstanding over a manhole - you end up to your neck in shìt.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should the muslim religion (or any other) have a veto on what may be discussed in an Irish secular school?

Has any representative of Islam attempted to veto what was being discussed in the school?

It seems to me the teacher was giving a lesson about the French Revolution and freedom of speech, and forgot that whilst talking about the Charlie Hebdo massacre (which, in a lesson to 11 year olds, you'd think would require some careful forethought anyway), it wasn't actually necessary to show an offensive image in order to discuss the fact that some people find it offensive, especially given that some of the people who would find it offensive were in the class.

The pupils mother didn't say she thought the subject shouldn't be discussed; she said that the image shown was offensive.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Has any representative of Islam attempted to veto what was being discussed in the school?

It seems to me the teacher was giving a lesson about the French Revolution and freedom of speech, and forgot that whilst talking about the Charlie Hebdo massacre (which, in a lesson to 11 year olds, you'd think would require some careful forethought anyway), it wasn't actually necessary to show an offensive image in order to discuss the fact that some people find it offensive, especially given that some of the people who would find it offensive were in the class.

The pupils mother didn't say she thought the subject shouldn't be discussed; she said that the image shown was offensive.

11 is old enough to absorb these concepts. It seems more educationally robust to show the picture so that kids can see and hopefully conclude how absurd some adults can be. why should the education of the rest of the class be censured ?
will trigger warnings become a thing in school now , some vegan kid will be offended if they teach about food or born again Christian kids will be offended for whatever reason.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

11 is old enough to absorb these concepts. It seems more educationally robust to show the picture so that kids can see and hopefully conclude how absurd some adults can be. why should the education of the rest of the class be censured ?
will trigger warnings become a thing in school now , some vegan kid will be offended if they teach about food or born again Christian kids will be offended for whatever reason.

What exactly is 'educationally robust'? And why would the teacher be deliberately leading pupils to the conclusion that adults can be absurd, when the lesson is supposed to be about the French Revolution and freedom of speech? Would it not be better to teach something like "We are free to draw and look at cartoons like those that caused this event. Because of that freedom, we can choose not to offend our friends in our class by forcing them to see something they don't want to". That seems like a much better lesson than "Look, we can make Ahmed cry by demonstrating how we're not censored (which I assume you mean by censured), not even by our own consideration for other people".

Whatever about trigger warnings for kids, I don't think butchering a pig in front of a vegan as an 'educationally robust' lesson has a great deal of value.

I don't believe seeing the cover of the magazine added anything to a lesson about freedom of speech (though knowing about it did); I do believe teaching children they should ignore other peoples feelings is a bad lesson to teach. A little bit of sense would have been useful in the circumstances.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

What exactly is 'educationally robust'? And why would the teacher be deliberately leading pupils to the conclusion that adults can be absurd, when the lesson is supposed to be about the French Revolution and freedom of speech? Would it not be better to teach something like "We are free to draw and look at cartoons like those that caused this event. Because of that freedom, we can choose not to offend our friends in our class by forcing them to see something they don't want to". That seems like a much better lesson than "Look, we can make Ahmed cry by demonstrating how we're not censored (which I assume you mean by censured), not even by our own consideration for other people".

Whatever about trigger warnings for kids, I don't think butchering a pig in front of a vegan as an 'educationally robust' lesson has a great deal of value.

I don't believe seeing the cover of the magazine added anything to a lesson about freedom of speech (though knowing about it did); I do believe teaching children they should ignore other peoples feelings is a bad lesson to teach. A little bit of sense would have been useful in the circumstances.

my son is in 5th class and they were dissecting a fish this year, junior said one of the girls was excused from participating. What the teacher didn't do was to say the class cant go ahead because of a particular individual.
And it fairness what you judge to be of educational value is neither here nor there, its what the teacher deems to be of educational value is what is important.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

11 is old enough to absorb these concepts. It seems more educationally robust to show the picture so that kids can see and hopefully conclude how absurd some adults can be. why should the education of the rest of the class be censured ?
will trigger warnings become a thing in school now , some vegan kid will be offended if they teach about food or born again Christian kids will be offended for whatever reason.

This forum is packed to the metaphorical rafters with parents complaining that their children are being influenced in school to conclude that their parents are absurd.

The thing with the ET model though, is that it's own ethos claims that it to respect the spiritual background of each child and so on, and that's why I said the ET model is a whole mix of conflicting ideologies.

Will trigger warnings become a thing in school? I would say it's far more likely to happen in an ET school than a school which has no shame in it's ability to discriminate against parents under certain conditions.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This forum is packed to the metaphorical rafters with parents complaining that their children are being influenced in school to conclude that their parents are absurd.

The thing with the ET model though, is that it's own ethos claims that it to respect the spiritual background of each child and so on, and that's why I said the ET model is a whole mix of conflicting ideologies.

Will trigger warnings become a thing in school? I would say it's far more likely to happen in an ET school than a school which has no shame in it's ability to discriminate against parents under certain conditions.

its a logical flaw for sure. lets say for instance that a teacher gave a project on something to do with beliefs, and a kid decided to do a project on scientific errors in the Quran say flat earth or something. would the kid be allowed to present it to the class? it sounds like in an ET school the kid would be prevented or the teacher ahead of time would have set the framework that such a topic wouldn't be possible.