Varadkar accuses the left of "wanting to turn religious people into pariahs"

Subcomandante Marcos

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He was trying to win back the religious vote.
He's playing both sides. He put himself out there as a champion of repeal, which the left have been pushing for for decades. Basically he wants the credit but the socialists or left to take any flak by kissing up to the religious. He's being a weasel.

He's a master of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds is our Leo.

alaimacerc

Red_Wake wrote: »

A chap I know had a kid a while back. He's insistent that the child will not go to a school in any way affiliated with the Church. The only secondary school around that fits that description is a community school where more kids go to jail than to college. He's ruining his child's life for the sake of spite.

Isn't it marvellous to be in the theocratic right, and have public services set up to cater for your own curious metaphysical whims. And then to be able to condemn everyone else left in a less fortunate position by this as either hypocritical, if they play along, or as "spiteful" if they don't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Grayson

Red_Wake wrote: »

Probably the same pot of billionaires the left expect to pay for all their idiot vanity projects.

A chap I know had a kid a while back. He's insistent that the child will not go to a school in any way affiliated with the Church. The only secondary school around that fits that description is a community school where more kids go to jail than to college. He's ruining his child's life for the sake of spite.

And guess which side of the political spectrum this halfwit lives on:angel:

It's nuts that he has to make that choice.
Where I live, if I had a kid, I wouldn't have any option but to send them to a religious primary and secondary. And that's nuts. It's not like I'm expecting an atheist school, just one that doesn't have a religious ethos. And they're pretty rare in Ireland.

It's only when you talk to a foreigner and you realise how strange our education system is. We spend so long in school learning about religion and preparing for sacraments.

Yer Da sells Avon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Whenever I hear that phrase, I'm reminded of Theresa May's response to a question from a nurse about the fact that she hadn't received a pay-rise in eight years.

markodaly

alaimacerc wrote: »

How soon do you think they'll have the cheque ready?

Who? The State? No idea as it will cost billions.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Think I'll stop you right there.

Shall we all play... *drum roll* ... spot the logical fallacy!

Don't be silly.

Harken to thine own sound advice.

Subcomandante Marcos

markodaly wrote: »

Who? The State? No idea as it will cost billions.

Well we can deduct the 1.3 billion + interest the church owes in redress from it for starters. that should provide a good chunk of the land needed.

Subcomandante Marcos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

When church patronage was prescribed by Dev and the boys it was pretty much one step away from a theocracy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Subcomandante Marcos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See, the thing is, they don't have the cash to pay it, so we'll take the land instead.

It's not residential or commercial land, it's not agricultural land, it's market value is a lot less. We can round it off and give them a kick in the arse for the balance.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If only religious people merely believed in pure fantasy. It's the firm belief in telling other people what to do on the basis of it that starts all the trouble.

James Brown

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

One is used by right wingers when asked to cough up for something that benefits others beside themselves, the other is proof that religion is a nonsense, but you're free to have such beliefs thanks to socialists like Jesus.

I would suggest the church should give over all it's lands to the state for social housing builds, by way of reparations to the people of Ireland.

topper75

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Very good

I recall distinctly the moment when my own religious faith commenced to erode. It was a sermon based on that loaves/fishes gospel story. That was a real 'hang on a sec' moment from which there could be no return.

I admit I never did get the magic money tree school of economic thought however. Scarcity concept was well understood as a kid.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One is used by right wingers when asked to cough up for something that benefits others beside themselves, the other is proof that religion is a nonsense, but you're free to have such beliefs thanks to socialists like Jesus.

I would suggest the church should give over all it's lands to the state for social housing builds, by way of reparations to the people of Ireland.

Reparation. ROLF.

You're woke bro!

markodaly

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

See, the thing is, they don't have the cash to pay it, so we'll take the land instead.

Maybe you can grapple with them instead and show off your superior BJJ technique.
Or maybe it's not going to happen, no matter how much you want it to.


When people are talking in Walter Mitty type scenarios you know the argument is lost.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Reparation. ROLF.

You're woke bro!

Very intelligent retort

Toddle along and say your payers son.

alaimacerc

markodaly wrote: »

When people are talking in Walter Mitty type scenarios you know the argument is lost.

What's remarkable is that we're living in a secular republic, which constitutionally prohibits giving money to religions, and in which popular support for continuing to give money to religions is falling through the floor. But in which some people are so normalised to the state giving money to religion that they consider the idea of this ever stopping as the stuff of fantasy.

Maybe it'll carry on like this until we eventually have another constitutional referendum. "No endowment of religion, but this time we actually mean it. No, but really!"

(I might have said "Simon Says", but that namespace is a little too polluted by Messers Coveney and Harris.)

markodaly

alaimacerc wrote: »

What's remarkable is that we're living in a secular republic, which constitutionally prohibits giving money to religions

It doesn't actually say that

The state may not "endow" any religion (Article 44.2.2°), nor discriminate on religious grounds (Article 44.2.3°)

It can, however, pay teachers to teach in a school owned by a religious order or pay a nurse to work in a hospital owned by a church.

If you are so sure of yourself, challenge it in the courts. I am sure you will win

alaimacerc

markodaly wrote: »

It doesn't actually say that

Are you attempting to split some distinction between "endow" and "give"?

OED wrote:

Give or bequeath an income or property to (a person or institution)

You try to help people out by using words of one syllable, and that's the thanks you get...

It can, however, pay teachers to teach in a school owned by a religious order or pay a nurse to work in a hospital owned by a church.

And give property to that church, that said church then gets huffy over its "private property rights" over. Supposedly.

If you are so sure of yourself, challenge it in the courts. I am sure you will win

We'll be seeing legal action in this area soon enough. And as I said, and if as you apparently entirely missed, if there's no democratic support for it, if necessary and law and constitution can and will inevitably be changed. However long that takes.

But continue to kid yourself about who's the fantasist, by all means.

Red_Wake

alaimacerc wrote: »

markodaly wrote: »

It doesn't actually say that

Are you attempting to split some distinction between "endow" and "give"?

OED wrote:

Give or bequeath an income or property to (a person or institution)

You try to help people out by using words of one syllable, and that's the thanks you get...

It can, however, pay teachers to teach in a school owned by a religious order or pay a nurse to work in a hospital owned by a church.

And give property to that church, that said church then gets huffy over its "private property rights" over.  Supposedly.

If you are so sure of yourself, challenge it in the courts. I am sure you will win

We'll be seeing legal action in this area soon enough.  And as I said, and if as you apparently entirely missed, if there's no democratic support for it, if necessary and law and constitution can and will inevitably be changed.  However long that takes.

But continue to kid yourself about who's the fantasist, by all means.

Who'll be taking such legal action? I've heard nothing of this. 

If it were suddenly illegal for the state to pay the salaries of teachers in religious schools, the education sector would shut down overnight. As permabear previously posted, 96% of schools are managed by a religious organisation, and all of these would be unable to pay their staff, resulting in the wholesale destruction of education.

A national attempt to cut off the nose to spite the face, as it were.

James Brown

I went to a christian school and they'd no interest in the religious aspect of it. We had a lady teach us 'religion' who would often note how odd it was they had her teaching it when she wasn't religious herself...she'd then proceed to stab us all because y'know, no ethics

We could still pay the teachers and management. Many of these schools have religious boards/caretakers with the religious order only appearing in the name or poking their nose in if some city slicker comes to town wanting to hold a dance, (see 'Footloose'). I suppose we could pay them for the use.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not what the user said at all no. What the user is very clearly saying, without having it re-worded by you, is that there is a useful line to be drawn between peoples personal standards, personal beliefs, and personal hobbies...... and the public sphere as a whole.

We can usefully discuss where such a line can or should be drawn without having to entirely straw man his position in the way you do here.

No, they were pretty clear in what they were saying. People should adhere to their standards. There was no room for negotiation there. Which is fine btw, they're entitled to have standards for themselves, but attempting to apply their standards to others is doing the very same thing they criticise other people for doing to them.

We already have that right. The discussion is just about where that right should begin and end. For example there is a diversity of sexual values and morals in the world and we very much do prohibit, impede and limit instill them directly in children. Or if parents had an attitude similar to some Christian Sects that children should not be educated, or even literate, we also currently impede them from instilling those morals and values. And so we should.

So yes we very much should be in the business of curtailing what values and morals parents can instill or inflict on their own children. The discussion should not be whether or why we have that right, but what the limits and goals of that right should be.

The discussion was never whether or not we have the right to impose our standards on others. I was asking HP -

"Why should you have the right to prohibit or impede parents from instilling their own values and morals in their own children? By even suggesting that you should be able to do so, or that the State should do so on your behalf, that's going beyond secularism and interfering in the right to privacy and family life."

HP doesn't have that right, and neither do you, and I certainly don't wish to be included in your narrative. All you have is the right to an opinion. You don't have a right to impede or prohibit parents from instilling their own values and morals in their own children, which is the point I was actually making.

I think some people would be perfectly happy to start by no longer treating businesses as charities for tax and other purposes. Neither a business in the business of profiting from the sale of lies, or a business in the business of being essentially a profitable charity broker..... are themselves a charity.

We might actually agree on something for once.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The beauty and wonder and emotional depth of the "facts" the world and the universe have to offer us blow religious narratives out of the water. It comes down to how we teach them, and what our goals are while teaching them. And all too often we get both of those things very wrong.

I guess whether we're right or wrong depends upon as you said our goals, or our objectives. You and I for instance would have very different goals and objectives for our children, and the values and morals which we wish to impart to them, and the way in which we impart to them that knowledge and experience and so on, with the aim or the goal of achieving our objectives.

Facts are not cold and hard, but too often we choose to work with them like they are. Adding no depth and nuance to what we teach our children. Take for one single random example the topic of space. Talking to some students recently they seemed quite impressed with how they could recite by rote the planets, in order, in our solar system. When I asked them what a planet actually was however, they stared with a blank and vacant expression. How we teach a second or third language in Irish schools compared to how, for example, the Germans over here learn English.......... also leaves my skin feeling cold. And what the benefit to the world was of people coming out of biology capable of drawing a simple representation of the cell structure of an algae has yet to become clear to me at any point.

I get your overall point, but just on the bit in bold - I don't agree at all that we don't teach our children depth and nuance, you just picked a blatant example which made your point is all. I can't relate to the example of how english is taught in Germany, but with regard to the example of a students ability to draw a simple representation of the cell structure of an algae, I imagine it could be useful to get them interested in studying biology. I never leaned in the direction of chemistry for example, yet it was knowledge that came in useful recently to be able to be able to fashion the bohr model of an atom from some pipe cleaners and those furry balls you can get in any arts and crafts shop.

The point is - there are likely many things you were taught about in school that you may not have seen the utility in then, but the student beside you may have been inspired to investigate further and make a useful contribution to society in the field of quantum physics that started with some pipe cleaners and furry balls, or indeed a simple representation of the cell structure of an algae.

As for the students who couldn't explain what a planet was, that again is just a blatant example which makes your point, but one would hope that at some point they would be inspired to discover the works of Carl Sagan. I didn't learn of his contribution to society in school, but learning about the planets in school made me want to learn more. I didn't have bad teachers, and it certainly wasn't the fault of the curriculum, which can only realistically be expected to give a basic grounding in any particular topic.

Many places, but sometimes especially Ireland, simply get education wrong. And I think we need to work on that. Not just removing unsubstantiated nonsense and hobbies from the main curriculum to an optional modular after school elective.......... but a complete revamp of what we teach, how we teach it, and our goals in teaching it appears long over due.

You snuck that in there handy :pac:

Apart from that though, there is always progress being made in the education system in Ireland. For example I was in the National Museum of Archaeology today, and there was a group of children being given a guided tour (I had actually meant to visit the Science Gallery, but there were no exhibitions on, but I took the opportunity to visit an exhibition of WB Yeats works in the National Library while I was in the vicinity... I digress), the point being that I did not have that opportunity when I was their age, and that there is a continuous revamp of the education system happening all the time. It's not like it's happening slowly either, you just haven't been paying attention is all.

You probably wouldn't appreciate the unsubstantiated nonsense that is wellness classes in school these days, didn't have them in my day either, but the opinions of students are equally divided on the utility of those classes as they are religion. It would appear that rather than removing unsubstantiated nonsense from the curriculum, the idea appears that more of it should be added to the curriculum!

As a French colleague of mine commented a couple of years ago now, she and her husband actually moved here because they regarded the Irish education system as far superior to the French education system. I could see where she was coming from as she isn't particularly appreciative of philosophy, but I haven't asked her recently for her opinion on the Irish system of education and how that's working out for her children since then.

Facts themselves are not the problem however. Facts can be beautiful, engaging, exciting even awe inspiring. Reality has much more to offer to engage us and stimulate us and fill us than any empty and unsubstantiated religious narrative. Or any religious narrative as insulting and demeaning to the human condition as "the Resurrection" mythology. But somehow we manage to lose that when parsing it through an education curriculum and I think that is an issue we can address both inside AND outside of the agenda of divesting the curriculum and the system of religious indoctrination.

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you're out of touch with the modern education system in Ireland that you imagine your concerns aren't already being addressed.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they were pretty clear in what they were saying. People should adhere to their standards.

While it might seem "clear" to you that they said that, I have read the post multiple times and simply can not find that message there. What I think "clear" therefore is you are more interested in the user saying what you want them to have said, rather than what they actually did.

The distinction being made was nothing to do with adhering to their standards, but imposing of one set of standards on another. Very different to what you are pretending. But as I keep pointing out it is a fallacious line of reasoning because we impose our standards on others all the time. The question is not whether we should be doing so at all, we should, but where the line should be drawn on when, where, how and why we do so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

HP doesn't have that right, and neither do you, and I certainly don't wish to be included in your narrative. All you have is the right to an opinion. You don't have a right to impede or prohibit parents from instilling their own values and morals in their own children, which is the point I was actually making.

Except as I pointed out we DO have that right, and we do it all the time. We very commonly impede parents from instilling their own values in and on their own children. And I listed examples of that you neither acknowledged or addressed. So I will repeat them. If the parents attempted to instill the values and morals in their children that they should remain illiterate, or that they should have sexual relations with their parents or siblings..... we would very much step in any impede their attempts to do this. And so we should.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I guess whether we're right or wrong depends upon as you said our goals, or our objectives. You and I for instance would have very different goals and objectives for our children, and the values and morals which we wish to impart to them, and the way in which we impart to them that knowledge and experience and so on, with the aim or the goal of achieving our objectives.

I very much doubt that our goals would be that different at all. The methodology by which we work towards them, such as you wishing to do so by way of lies, fairy tales and unsubstantiated nonsense, likely differ ENTIRELY for example. But our ultimate goals themselves I doubt are very different at all.

I gave an example of this in the post where I met some children who were proud to be able to reel off by rote a list of the planets in order or orbit. They even had a little sentence they used to do it "My Very Extravegant Mother Just Sat Under North Pole". Clearly their teacher was not informed Pluto is no longer a planet though. But the children in question could not actually tell me what a planet was. What defines one. How does one differ from anything else in the cosmos.

Similarly I was discussing Shakespeare with some students recently. They proudly, and with feeling, quoted reems of it back to me. My own English Teacher in school..... on the rare occasions he was not merely trying to promote and sell his own Leaving Certificate Book on the subject, or getting people to join the boxing club...... did little more than get us to memorize passages too. When I asked the students what the meaning or context or imagery or anything in what they quoted to me was..... again with the blank stares.

I think that is one of the goals I mean. Clearly the current goal is to have children learn by rote several lists of "facts" (even erroneous ones, such as pluto). Where as I think a better goal would be to instill in children a factual knowledge that does not require memorizing mere facts, but uniting and understanding them. Rather than listing off the names of planets, to actually know what a planet is. To understand facts, know how to obtain them, parse them, use them and apply them........... rather than merely store them uselessly.

I reckon if that conversation was had at length quite a lot of people would agree to that being a useful shift in goals and if you explored the subject in depth yourself you might find our goals not as divergent as you like to pretend in this regard either.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get your overall point, but just on the bit in bold - I don't agree at all that we don't teach our children depth and nuance, you just picked a blatant example which made your point is all.

Hardly. I just picked the one I thought I could best describe to a complete lay person to science like yourself. I have plenty more and from pretty much every subject.

I have similar issues with all the sciences, with history and geography, English Literature, how we teach Irish and foreign languages. Man Shakespeare in school was such a dead 2dimensional thing in content and delivery. This video here alone stimulated more understanding, excitement, interest, context, depth, nuance and connection for me than 6 years in secondary school ever did. And I have played the video to a number of current students and it has done the same for them.

I even think much more could be done in mathematics where the beauty and narrative and depth and history of the subject is lost in the more by rote approach we take to getting students to learn off the proofs of Theorems and equations with little context. Calculus alone has wonderfully interesting histories behind it. Aspects of it being described by Newton pretty much on a dare/bet. All the character and characterS and narrative behind the history of mathematics is just lost in the class room.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't relate to the example of how english is taught in Germany, but with regard to the example of a students ability to draw a simple representation of the cell structure of an algae, I imagine it could be useful to get them interested in studying biology.

I really can not imagine how. The only people I ever saw stimulated or engaged by that exercise were the ones of an artistic bent who simply liked to draw stuff. WHAT they were drawing was, at best, incidental. The actually scientifically minded people, myself included, tended not to be artistically inclined. And having to therefore draw a graphic was at best a frustration, at worst a complete waste of time distraction, in actually pursuing our interest in the sciences. Further I struggle to find any ACTUAL scientists who have to invest any time at all with a packet of coloring pencils drawing graphics at all. So even if your imagination was correct, and it stimulated an interest in biology, they are likely to be disillusioned later when their interest does not match practice.

Worse in the sciences we never seem to teach anything of the actual scientific method. What it is, why we use it, what happens when it is used in properly, and the philosophical fallacies it curtails. We never seem to teach students what a science paper is, how to parse or interpret one, and what minimum standards should be adhered to when creating one. We teach little about the process of peer review, let alone have students actually perform such a review.

In other words the history and the bread and butter of science itself is simply missing from the science class room. Instead one just sits in "physics" class for example doing little more than writing a few equations, and shining a white light through a prism. It is spiritually and emotionally dead, though the occasion charismatic teacher can liven it up a small bit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You snuck that in there handy

Saying something again that I say often and loudly is somehow "sneaking" is it? You really do like to mangle narratives to create your own, dontcha.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Apart from that though, there is always progress being made in the education system in Ireland.

Indeed, and I never suggested otherwise. However I do think "progress" is very slow, very forced, and hard won when it actually happens. You said it is not slow, but aside from SAYING that you have not actually backed up that with anything but a snide personal comment about me.

And as I said before the progress I am more aware of than you wish to pretend is hard won INSIDE current goals and I think the goals we have in education are quite outdated and it is those goals where we need the progress, not just the progress you yourself see and notice within them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You probably wouldn't appreciate the unsubstantiated nonsense that is wellness classes in school these days, didn't have them in my day either, but the opinions of students are equally divided on the utility of those classes as they are religion. It would appear that rather than removing unsubstantiated nonsense from the curriculum, the idea appears that more of it should be added to the curriculum!

You can certainly pocket that bull narrative as not only would I appreciate such things, it falls very much into an area I have being strongly activist on for quite some time. Progress there is not just something I appreciate, but can actually take some small level of personal credit for. Your error is in lumping that in with the "unsubstantiated nonsense" of which I spoke. There are many things falling under the purview in question that are in fact quite heavily substantiated.

The obvious issue is that the umbrella term "wellness" does indeed include BOTH substantiated and unsubstantiated nonsense. So any useful discussion it between us would have to go deeper than the mere umbrella term itself. I have long fought hard for the inclusion of some introductory level, and deeper levels, of Vipassana Meditation Techniques, and Mindfullness, in schools. The benefits of which are anything but unsubstantiated nonsense, but are more and more attested to in the literatures.

But the abject nonsense that CAN be smuggled in under that label is egregious too.

So no, nothing you write here rebuts my suggestion that we should be removing unsubstantiated nonsense from the curriculum or the goals. Quote the opposite, it rather makes the point for me.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you're out of touch with the modern education system in Ireland that you imagine your concerns aren't already being addressed.

Then you think wrong as I never once suggested they are not being addressed. It is the how they are being addressed, the why, the methodology, the goals under which they are addressed, and the speed at which they are being addressed that are my concerns. Nothing I have written here at all even remotely suggests that my issue is with them not at all being addressed. Education is a constantly evolving thing, and changes happen all the time. But it is incumbent upon us to mold the environment in which that evolution can happen.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Saying something again that I say often and loudly is somehow "sneaking" is it? You really do like to mangle narratives to create your own, dontcha.

...

Indeed, and I never suggested otherwise. However I do think "progress" is very slow, very forced, and hard won when it actually happens. You said it is not slow, but aside from SAYING that you have not actually backed up that with anything but a snide personal comment about me.

All your ducking and diving and accusing people of the very things you do yourself really just makes any attempt at conversation with you a pointless endeavour. I have said this to you on many occasions, yet you still mangle that narrative and create your own in which you accuse me of running from the discussion. Observing that you are out of touch with the modern education system in Ireland wasn't a snide remark. It's a fact.

One that you are understandably reluctant to accept.

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

our money creation systems are rather magical as they are, but it has been decided, that its best not to distribute this wealth more evenly, as this wealth will magically 'trickle down'!:rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All your ducking and diving and accusing people of the very things you do yourself really just makes any attempt at conversation with you a pointless endeavour. I have said this to you on many occasions, yet you still mangle that narrative and create your own in which you accuse me of running from the discussion. Observing that you are out of touch with the modern education system in Ireland wasn't a snide remark. It's a fact.

One that you are understandably reluctant to accept.

Where have I ducked ANYTHING exactly? I am sure there are many things I can be accused of on this site, but ducking points and running away is certainly not one of them ever. Projecting what you are the only one doing on to others is not something I do, but it is something I have had to pull you up on NUMEROUS times in the past. So I guess you have just added that to the things you are now projecting even though only you do it.

So once again you dodge the discussion and once again you pretend it is somehow my fault that you decide to do this. The only one mangling a narrative here is you though by falsely accusing me of "sneaking" when I did no such thing. But by all means explain to me how me saying something openly, and often, has suddenly become "sneaking".

However it is anything BUT a fact that I am out of touch with the modern education system in Ireland and you have in no way demonstrated this "fact" other than asserting it. However you have demonstrated the errors behind why you think it is a fact, such as your comment about "wellness" and your fallacious assumption I do not "appreciate" it.

The EXACT opposite is true, which simply shows your "facts" are in fact errors of your own invention. Not only am I "in touch" with such areas, I am in fact highly activist and active in them. The exact opposite of being out of touch with it. And in fact I am more in touch with it than you, demonstrably, given I do not simply classify the whole area under one word, and dismiss the whole area as "unsubstantiated" as I know much of what exists under that umbrella, and I know much of it is unsubstantiated nonsense, and much of it is not.

So my view of the subject is MUCH more nuanced and informed than yours. So not only is your evaluation of me being out of touch fallacious, you are not seemingly even in a position informed enough to make the evaluation in the first place.

So once again you are dodging the discussion, and smoke screening that dodge by making it about me personally.

James Brown

Ironically, whatever about Leo's claims 'de left' are trying to turn the religious into pariahs, he has no such qualms regarding Fine Gael and himself doing the very same thing to any grouping not slapping him on the back, (protesters, people on welfare, renters, homeless and sick).