Secularism: Mod note in first post

sunshine and showers

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; I imagine anyone who doesn't want a religion to be a part of their child's formal education would think it's perfectly reasonable, just as those who feel their religion is a fundamental part of their child's formal education would find it entirely unreasonable. I'm fully supportive of both of their rights to find a way to educate their child as they see fit.

Then surely you agree that the majority Catholic control of schools in this coubtry should be done away with? Then there would be more equality in exercising the right to educate children as the parents see fit. The current system is a Catholic school or nothing in many parts of the country.

King Mob

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I really don't understand this argument of setting up secular schools. You can't just set up a school. And why should non-religious parents have to pay for schools to be set up?

Equally I would question why non-religious parents have to pay for religious education via taxes and government support of those schools.

And similarly, why can't the Catholic church provide and pay their own teachers rather than tie up (and discriminate against) government paid teachers?

But I suppose that's just what the majority wants, so no reason to disagree with it...

sunshine and showers

King Mob wrote: »

Equally I would question why non-religious parents have to pay for religious education via taxes and government support of those schools.

And similarly, why can't the Catholic church provide and pay their own teachers rather than tie up (and discriminate against) government paid teachers?

But I suppose that's just what the majority wants, so no reason to disagree with it...

I'm not even sure it IS what the majority wants, it's just what people are used to.

smacl

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Then surely you agree that the majority Catholic control of schools in this coubtry should be done away with? Then there would be more equality in exercising the right to educate children as the parents see fit. The current system is a Catholic school or nothing in many parts of the country.

Seems to me that the people of the country should be asked what type of education system they want, based on a list of possible feasible options which they rank as either preferred, acceptable or unacceptable. To be honest, while religious ethos is part of this, there's quite a bit more involved and best use of resources also has to be considered. One of the main problems I have with segregation by religion and/or gender is it necessitates more schools for the same size of population and more travel, where each student ends up losing out due to economy of scale. e.g. If you have a mix of Catholic, Protestant, Atheist and Muslim boys and girls in a given area, a single local school that can accommodate them all is the most cost effective solution and for a given budget will result in smallest class sizes, best resources and minimum school commute distances. Separate schools for each creed and gender requires duplication of costs, and hence smaller schools with fewer resources, and greater commute distances.

Professor Moriarty

smacl wrote: »

Seems to me that the people of the country should be asked what type of education system they want, based on a list of possible feasible options which they rank as either preferred, acceptable or unacceptable. To be honest, while religious ethos is part of this, there's quite a bit more involved and best use of resources also has to be considered. One of the main problems I have with segregation by religion and/or gender is it necessitates more schools for the same size of population and more travel, where each student ends up losing out due to economy of scale. e.g. If you have a mix of Catholic, Protestant, Atheist and Muslim boys and girls in a given area, a single local school that can accommodate them all is the most cost effective solution and for a given budget will result in smallest class sizes, best resources and minimum school commute distances. Separate schools for each creed and gender requires duplication of costs, and hence smaller schools with fewer resources, and greater commute distances.

Plus secular schools enhances integration, multiculturalism, tolerance and broadens the mind. What's not to like?

looksee

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I really don't understand this argument of setting up secular schools. You can't just set up a school. And why should non-religious parents have to pay for schools to be set up?

It makes far more sense to set up supplementary religious education schools for children to attend outside schools hours or on weekends to learn specifically about religion.

The argument about setting up your own schools is the mainstay of the 'religious' argument. It seems it is reasonable to duplicate all schools everywhere to accommodate all shades of religion (apart from Catholicism) and atheism, while still having the taxpayers pay for the church to 'own' all the existing schools. Which kind of demonstrates the paucity of the argument on their part.

And that is another red herring, they only 'own' all the schools because the state handed over most of them, certainly the vast majority of the primary schools. The church has put in very little more than supervision and an iron grip into most of them.

King Mob

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I'm not even sure it IS what the majority wants, it's just what people are used to.

Yup, Abolsam is still trying to avoid this, as without it then even that thread of his argument is moot.

He's basing it all on the idea that the majority of people who are sending kids to school are catholic (which is doubtful), that the majority of those people are in favour of catholic schools (which is doubtful), that the majority of those people are not in favour of secular schools (which is doubtful) and that the majority of these people believe religion is a fundamental part of their child's formal education (which is laughable).

I'd wager the number of people who actually do really really want a Catholic or religious ethos in their school is tiny.

looksee

Sadly the numbers are skewed by the people who have said they are catholic just to get their children into a local school, and the ones who can't deal with changing the status quo, even though they are not active catholics, the ones who say 'it was good enough for me' and the ones who can't be bothered having an opinion.

sunshine and showers

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, Abolsam is still trying to avoid this, as without it then even that thread of his argument is moot.

He's basing it all on the idea that the majority of people who are sending kids to school are catholic (which is doubtful), that the majority of those people are in favour of catholic schools (which is doubtful), that the majority of those people are not in favour of secular schools (which is doubtful) and that the majority of these people believe religion is a fundamental part of their child's formal education (which is laughable).

I'd wager the number of people who actually do really really want a Catholic or religious ethos in their school is tiny.

Looking at the current state of attendance at mass each week, I'd have to agree.

Parents want their children to go to the best school, and if the best school happens to be Catholic they don't really care. It's incidental, not a pull factor.

There is no valid or logical reason for the Catholic church to have control over the majority of primary and secondary schools in Ireland. Control should be divested to the State. It's a bias towards a religion that no longer has the level of power it once did.

King Mob

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Looking at the current state of attendance at mass each week, I'd have to agree.

Likewise, all the people are supposed to care about a catholic ethos, yet in things like the recent marriage referendum, they vote against the catholic ethos.

MrPudding

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Open to correction, but I don't believe Professor Moriarty means that religious parents should have to set up their own schools to educate their children, or they go uneducated.

I think he is arguing that parents who want to educate their children specifically on religious matters should set up supplementary schools for that purpose. Like Sunday schools, if you will. These would be in addition to the formal state education.

I think that is perfectly reasonable.

Yes, if only there were massive, worldwide networks designed specifically to pass on religious belief to the masses. If only these networks had buildings and staff in almost every town, built for the sole purpose of furthering that network's goals.

If only such a thing existed, then parents that wanted their children indoctrinated into a particular religion could send them there for their indoctrination and leave the schools alone so they could get on with what should be their sole purpose, educating children.

MrP

Absolam

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He got what he's entitled to under the constitution - a primary education. Hopefully it was secular...

So, when you say the state has an obligation to offer all children the same education, you mean simply a primary education? No need to worry about forcing it to be secular so.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, I've stated that a secular education for all is in alignment with what I believe to be the principles of a true republic and a healthy society. Also, that children should be educated without being segregated on the basis of religion. What exactly is your problem with this?

Pretty much that you didn't say it's what you believe, hence my pointing out that I reckon you'll get as many different versions of that as there are people in a true republic or a healthy society.

Absolam

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, viable if you have time, money, connections and skills. Otherwise, what should parents who do not have all of these things do? Pretend to be catholic?

They could acquire the time money and skills? That seems a more honest approach then the one you keep advocating. If you're honest though, it's not really up to me to decide how they should get what they want, is it?

King Mob wrote: »

Also, are you now suggesting that a single person who wants a secular education is equally able to provide what a centuries old, extremely wealthy multinational organisation like the Catholic church is able to? Seems a bit disingenuous, no?

Nope. Though I'd point out that the centuries old, extremely wealthy multinational Catholic church isn't pouring it's resources into providing schools either, nor was it when Catholic schools were being set up here.

King Mob wrote: »

The government should provide secular education to all people and allow religious institutions to provide their own schools as long as they adhere to standards.

Nah... the government should provide funding for education and allow parents to choose the education that best suits what they want for their children or provide it themselves.

Since the balance of your post was simply asking me to justify arguments I haven't actually offered, you'll pardon me if I don't bother...

King Mob wrote: »

Yup, Abolsam is still trying to avoid this, as without it then even that thread of his argument is moot.

In fairness, I'm not saying what the majority want, you're just telling me I'm saying it. Just like the rest of your post; you're providing arguments on my behalf which I'm not offering. Pretty consistently.... Which actually is laughable.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

So, when you say the state has an obligation to offer all children the same education, you mean simply a primary education? No need to worry about forcing it to be secular so.

What on earth do you mean by this?

Absolam

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I really don't understand this argument of setting up secular schools. You can't just set up a school. And why should non-religious parents have to pay for schools to be set up? It makes far more sense to set up supplementary religious education schools for children to attend outside schools hours or on weekends to learn specifically about religion.

Only to people who want exclusively secular schools though; those who want other kinds of schools wouldn't be so enthusiastic.

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Then surely you agree that the majority Catholic control of schools in this coubtry should be done away with? Then there would be more equality in exercising the right to educate children as the parents see fit. The current system is a Catholic school or nothing in many parts of the country.

I 'd agree that if people don't want to send their children to Catholic schools they shouldn't, after all, they can't be obliged to. And if Catholic educational organisations feel there's no demand for their services I don't see any reason they should continue to do so.

No one, as far as I can tell, is arguing that it is reasonable to duplicate all schools everywhere to accommodate all shades of religion and none, and yet this seems to be trotted out as some sort of rationale for forcing all schools to become State controlled secular institutions. The reality is we've never had a one size fits all education system, nor should we.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Oh I agree; having what we want just given to us by the State would be utopian, especially since we all want different things. I doubt we'll ever live in utopia though, so I'll settle for parents being allowed to choose an education for their children, be it ever so difficult to obtain, over parents being told by the State what education their children will have.

But what you are suggesting already exists.

having what we want just given to us by the State would be utopian

Isn't that exactly what all those Catholic parents already have?

I'll settle for parents being allowed to choose an education for their children,

Yup, that's what all the Catholic parents can already do.

over parents being told by the State what education their children will have

Again, the State is telling parents their children will have a Catholic education, its already happening.

I am seeing a trend here.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

What on earth do you mean by this?

If you'll excuse my explaining by means of he said I said;

Absolam wrote: »

I'm fully supportive of both of their rights to find a way to educate their child as they see fit.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The state has an obligation to offer all children the same education.

Absolam wrote: »

Really? Where is this obligation stated? Only I have a mate who never got past primary school, and he definitely wasn't offered the same education as me, so I reckon he might have a case if you're right.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He got what he's entitled to under the constitution - a primary education. Hopefully it was secular...

Absolam wrote: »

So, when you say the state has an obligation to offer all children the same education, you mean simply a primary education? No need to worry about forcing it to be secular so.

If the State's obligation to interfere with parents rights to find a way to educate their child as they see fit only extends as far as ensuring they get a primary education, it does not, in fact, interfere with them finding a religious, or secular, way to educate their child as they see fit.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

If you'll excuse my explaining by means of he said I said;


If the State's obligation to interfere with parents rights to find a way to educate their child as they see fit only extends as far as ensuring they get a primary education, it does not, in fact, interfere with them finding a religious, or secular, way to educate their child as they see fit.

This is still not making sense, are you suggesting that its ok to have religious primary education because primary is not education?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

But what you are suggesting already exists.

It does indeed.

looksee wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what all those Catholic parents already have?

Not really, no. You yourself have pointed out how the resources that put those schools in place came from communities and individuals around the country, haven't you? Those Catholic parents are benefiting from the efforts of like minded parents, certainly.

looksee wrote: »

Yup, that's what all the Catholic parents can already do.

As can parents of other faiths and none. Like Catholic parents, it may not necessarily be quite the education they want, but I'll agree Catholics benefit from having a greater potential variety of choices available.

looksee wrote: »

Again, the State is telling parents their children will have a Catholic education, its already happening.

That's not true though, is it? I've never heard of a single instance of the State obliging parents to send their children to any particular type of school designated by the State.

looksee wrote: »

I am seeing a trend here.

I think it's more like you're tryng to make out that there's a trend here.
No one disputes that there are lots of Catholic schools, and educating your children is much easier if your ambition is simply for them to have a Catholic education. Nor do I disagree that it's very very difficult to provide your children with an exclusively secular education. I do however disagree that the State is or should be under any obligation to provide it on your behalf or to force others to abandon their choices and adopt yours.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

This is still not making sense, are you suggesting that its ok to have religious primary education because primary is not education?

Nope. I'm saying the fact that a person is entitled to a primary education makes no difference to parents rights to find a way to educate their child as they see fit.

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

They could acquire the time money and skills?

Absolam wrote: »

That seems a more honest approach then the one you keep advocating. If you're honest though, it's not really up to me to decide how they should get what they want, is it?

Oh well it's just that easy I guess... Stop being poor. Genius :rolleyes:

Again you display your privilege and honestly shocking callousness.

Not everyone is able to acquire the skills, money, time and connections to go about building a school from scratch.
Not everyone is able to do this in a timeframe that would benefit their kids.
And even if a person is lucky enough to have all of these things, there are still hurdles that would stop them dead.

Building a school from scratch is not a viable alternative. You pretending it is shows how unfair the system is.

So the persons choices are suck it up and send their child to a Catholic school (which is allowed to discriminate against their child), build their own school from scratch and hope it's successful, or dropping their entire life to homeschool?
That about sum it up?

Absolam wrote: »

Nope. Though I'd point out that the centuries old, extremely wealthy multinational Catholic church isn't pouring it's resources into providing schools either, nor was it when Catholic schools were being set up here.

Still, a laughable disingenuous comparison.

Absolam wrote: »

Nah... the government should provide funding for education and allow parents to choose the education that best suits what they want for their children or provide it themselves.

Yes, and the best, fairest, cheapest and most inclusive way to do this is to provide secular schools and allow religious orders to establish their own private schools as long as they adhere to standards.

The current Irish system does not allow parents to really choose the education they want.

Absolam wrote: »

Since the balance of your post was simply asking me to justify arguments I haven't actually offered, you'll pardon me if I don't bother...

So you keep whining, but you will return to those arguments in short order.

However, you have been asked three times about the fact the UN and other bodies conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights. You have pointedly ignored and edited out this question each time.
I think this is very telling.

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, I'm not saying what the majority want, you're just telling me I'm saying it. Just like the rest of your post; you're providing arguments on my behalf which I'm not offering. Pretty consistently.... Which actually is laughable.

Then what justification are you using to defend the majority of catholic ethos schools in the country?

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

The current Irish system does not allow parents to really choose the education they want.

Yes, but a system in which the state only provided/funded secular schools would not allow them any choice at all. Replacing a system in which 95% of schools are of one type with a system in which 100% of schools are of one type does not increase choice; it reduces it.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but a system in which the state only provided/funded secular schools would not allow them any choice at all. Replacing a system in which 95% of schools are of one type with a system in which 100% of schools are of one type does not increase choice; it reduces it.

But that's not what I advocate. I detail exactly that in the above post.

Yes, and the best, fairest, cheapest and most inclusive way to do this is to provide secular schools and allow religious orders to establish their own private schools as long as they adhere to standards.

Further, there are many, many ways to include religious education in supplemental ways such as sunday schools as many have pointed out here.
Or you know, Church...
There is no analog for how a person who does not want catholic ethos education that would likewise satisfy them.

If you, like Abolsam are going to insist that there are people who believe that religion is fundemental to education, then I'm going to need some evidence to show that these people are a sizable majority to maintain the current, unfair system.

evolving_doors

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but a system in which the state only provided/funded secular schools would not allow them any choice at all. Replacing a system in which 95% of schools are of one type with a system in which 100% of schools are of one type does not increase choice; it reduces it.

So the above logic would follow that increased 'choice' is desirable, and follow a certain consensus floating around that the state should work towards increasing choice for parents (building more schools etc). A different school for each religion, all, and none.
But surely the end goal here is Education. Not Education.... with a bit of tailored indoctrination on the side.
All kids follow the same curriculum as laid out by the NCCA, thats not reducing choice.
Ex Curricular is outside classroom instruction time. There's a choice opportunity for all right there. No need to be building schools based on children's parents' beliefs.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not what I advocate. I detail exactly that in the above post.



Further, there are many, many ways to include religious education in supplemental ways such as sunday schools as many have pointed out here.
Or you know, Church...
There is no analog for how a person who does not want catholic ethos education that would likewise satisfy them.

If you, like Abolsam are going to insist that there are people who believe that religion is fundemental to education, then I'm going to need some evidence to show that these people are a sizable majority to maintain the current, unfair system.

I'm not suggesting that the current system be maintained; I think it needs fairly significant overhaul. I'm just objecting to a system in which one type of school - secular schools - (and the parents who prefer them) would be privileged to an even greater degree than Catholic schools (and the parents who prefer them) are privileged under the current system. That seems to me to make matters worse, not better.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but a system in which the state only provided/funded secular schools would not allow them any choice at all. Replacing a system in which 95% of schools are of one type with a system in which 100% of schools are of one type does not increase choice; it reduces it.

A system which allows for fewer larger schools of the same type actually increases educational choice, as a larger school will have more resources to offer a greater range of subjects for all students, which smaller schools will struggle to cater for. I've seen this first hand with my elder daughters secondary school, an all girl Catholic school, which doesn't offer engineering, woodwork, or applied maths in the senior cycle at all and has limited availability for honours physics and chemistry with subject streams setup that every student has to do either home economics or art. This has more to do with gender separation than religious ethos, but then gender separation seems to go hand in hand with religious ethos. Going to a local school also improves educational options by having more available time to study or take on extra curricular activities in the time that would otherwise be lost to commuting.

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but a system in which the state only provided/funded secular schools would not allow them any choice at all. Replacing a system in which 95% of schools are of one type with a system in which 100% of schools are of one type does not increase choice; it reduces it.

That would depend on how it was implemented I guess.

The ideal world for me, were I some magical dictator tomorrow (as opposed to status quo constitutional replies I tend to get when I discuss how I think it should be, and only get replies about how it IS pretty much every time.) would be a system where 100% of the schools funded by the state implemented a state curriculum the content of which, the teaching methods for which and enrollment and access to which was ENTIRELY blind to race, creed, religion, gender etc.

If people then wanted their particular hobby implemented in that school in a modular fashion AFTER the core curriculum hours then these state facilities would be made available for that purpose for as little cost as possible to the provider. Be that art, creative writing, a martial art, fishing, or any particular religion.

So all children would be taught a core curriculum that was devoid of teaching them any unsubstantiated nonsense as true, or requiring that they subscribe to any brand of such nonsense in order to enroll.

If their parents wish them outside those core hours to learn that a cynophocic illiterate pedophile wrote down the words of a god conveyed to him vicariously in his head by an angel....... or that the creator of the universe impregnated an underage virgin against her will in order to give birth to himself so that he could set up a club that eat crackers and drink wine in a particular fashion......... then the facilities should be made available for them to do so. The building is there, the classrooms are vacant, the patron of the school can provide teachers on their own budget or find volunteers or bill the parents directly. But the facilities, state funded and maintained ANYWAY for the core curriculum, should ideally be made available for this as cheaply, or as freely, as possible.

So I do not see this as offering less choice. Ideally it would offer MORE choice as the children filing out of the classroom at the end of the core curriculum day can either head home or file their way into their Islamic class or their Catholicism class, or their vipassana class, or their creative writing class, or their martial art, or whatever their (or vicariously their parents) hobby of choice happens to be. A little more like Universities the schools would then be beacons of diversity and choice and pluralism and equality. And I do not just attack religion in my ideals here. Gender is also an issue. I think it a poor situation that schools are gender segregated and then some girls schools refuse to offer metal or wood work, while in my own school two boys who wanted to do home economics had to study on their own to be offered the subject.

But I do not see why we have, or should continue to have, a system where peoples hobby should have anything to do with the content of, the methods of teaching of, or access to the enrollment of, a state curriculum. The "parents should be able to choose what their children are taught" argument simply does not cut it with me. I think the state should be building a core curriculum generalized for and relevant to ALL students, teaching them only what we have genuine reason to think useful or true, regardless of what the parents want (or do not want) their children to learn. And if a parent has an imaginary friend, let THEM pass that on. There is no good argument for maintaining a system where the state or the schools should be doing that for them.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the current system be maintained; I think it needs fairly significant overhaul. I'm just objecting to a system in which one type of school - secular schools - (and the parents who prefer them) would be privileged to an even greater degree than Catholic schools (and the parents who prefer them) are privileged under the current system. That seems to me to make matters worse, not better.

Again, secular schools provide the same options to everyone and leave the option available for alternative education provided by churches and for supplemental education.
I am not sure how this is worse and I'm not convinced that any significant number of parents choose catholic schools because they are catholic.
Factors such as cost, distance, class size, ease of acceptance and school reputation play far more of a role. So the government should favour these factors.

What's the alternative? Providing all religions their own individual schools in every town? That's not feasible.
Nor is building separate schools to demographics as needed as 1. it will never be current and accurate and 2. It will be silly expensive.
Nor is expecting individuals to set up their own schools to fill their demand.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would depend on how it was implemented I guess.

The ideal world for me . . .

King Mob wrote: »

Again, secular schools provide the same options to everyone and leave the option available for alternative education provided by churches and for supplemental education.
I am not sure how this is worse . . . .

But, with respect, you're both secular individuals who presumably are seeking, or would seek if the occasion arose, a secular education for your children. Which means that what's ideal for you, or what you're sure of, is not much of a standard against which to measure whether people who have different educational aspirations are or would be well-served by the system which would satisfy you. I entirely agree that under the present system your values and your wishes are not adequately respected or catered for, but if that's objectionable a system which prioritised your values/aspirations over those of other people must be equally objectionable.

Isn't it Rawls whose theory of justice proposes a thought-experiment in which we frame rules for a society without knowing what position we ourselves will occupy in that society? Without knowing whether we will be rich or poor, male or female, black or white, talented or less so, or - in this instance - secular or religious.

It seems to me that if you take this approach then you want a system of education provision which, so far as possible, is neutral as between secular and religious schools, and which seeks to be responsive to the actual wishes of parents, whatever they might turn out to be, and regardless of whether the actual secular you, or the actual religious you, would approve of them. That, I grant you, is not going to be easy to provide, but that has to be the goal.

looksee

If I don't want milk in my tea, or butter on my scone I can reasonably expect that a cafe will provide me with black tea and an un-buttered scone, with milk and butter on the side so I can add it if I wish. I would not expect them to provide me with already milky tea and an already buttered scone on the basis that 'that's what most people prefer, so you can just put up with it'.