The Hazards of Belief

bnt · 22-08-2016 04:12PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I read that segment by Sam. The overarching motives of ISIS match very closely to the literal Islamic doctrines indeed. None of it is surprising. They have been telling the west their motives from the beginning. The west have been lying to themselves about it, at least in public.

One thing that folks don't seem to get about Islam is that it's not just a religion. It's a complete way of life. Just as there are "Cafeteria Christians", there are Muslims who don't do "all Islam, all the time", sure - but those Muslims are also on ISIS' radar. It's a Salafist view of the Islamic world: skip the last 1,400 years, take the world back to the first days of Islam, when the world was simpler: be a Muslim, be a dhimmi subservient to Islam (pay jizya, be officially worth less as a person), or be dead.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-08-2016 10:34PM

This is downright crazy.

Religion, nursing and teacher training - what's the connection?

This year students who have accepted primary teaching places at DCU through the CAO will study together in what is essentially one primary teaching course at the college’s new Faculty of Education.

However, in order to protect those religious ethos', DCU is maintaining two separate entry routes, with separate CAO codes.

The pathway for Protestant applicants is through CAO code DC004. They need 435 points. This is a "Restricted Entry" route, reserved for Protestants. All applicants must "attend and pass a qualifying interview".

All other Primary Teaching applicants applied this year using a different CAO code; DC001. This is the former Catholic St Patrick's College route. There was no interview, but these applicants needed a higher score - 465 points.

There is another difference too. Applicants through the main DC001 route have to have Honours Leaving Certificate Irish. But Protestant applicants using the DR004 route do not.

The DCU prospectus states that "applicants with a D3 on Higher Level or C3 on Ordinary Level Irish may be offered places [if] there are insufficient candidates with the Honours Irish requirement".

I have spoken to the parent of a student who has been accepted for Primary Teaching this year. This parent points out that you could have two applicants to the same course; one rejected with Honours Irish and 460 points, and the other accepted with 435 points and Ordinary Level Irish "simply because they are Protestant".

As in education, it is the Catholic church that is dominant. This has led to another unusual situation, this time related to Nursing, and at Trinity College Dublin.

The college has two separate CAO entry routes for Nursing, again depending on a student's religious background. TR091 General Nursing (Meath and St James), and TR093 General Nursing (Adelaide School of Nursing).

The former Protestant Adelaide Hospital is one of three that were brought together a number of years ago to form the new hospital at Tallaght.

Applicants to TR093 (Adelaide) undergo a separate vetting process. According to the Trinity College website, "in selecting applicants the [Adelaide Hospital] Society has regard to its particular obligation to appoint from the Protestant community and also to members of inter-church families".

Applicants must fill out an additional application form to measure eligibility. But the points required of them are lower; 400 as opposed to 425.

In both of these cases - Trinity and DCU - the Protestant participants in the amalgamations appear to have adopted extraordinary measures to protect their religious ethos in the face of the dominant Catholic one.

One would be forgiven for asking - what's wrong with training just 'teachers', and 'nurses'?

But in Ireland that's a complicated question.

The parent who contacted me is asking it though, "We're going to have to stop this nonsense", she says.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-08-2016 11:08PM

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/stem-steams-ahead-as-students-abandon-the-arts-ship-1.2763784

In the wake of the scandal at Maynooth’s Catholic seminary, meanwhile, interest in theology has dropped. Catholic theological studies at Trinity’s least popular and lowest points course. Despite a drop in the number of places available, points have nonetheless tumbled, from 360 to 330. Trinity’s world religions and theology course is Trinity’s second least popular course, with points steady at 360. Theology at the Pontifical University, which has been beset by scandal over the summer, drops by 65 points to 360.

What is the benefit to the taxpayer of funding these at all?

Absolam · 22-08-2016 11:48PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/stem-steams-ahead-as-students-abandon-the-arts-ship-1.2763784What is the benefit to the taxpayer of funding these at all?

Probably about the same as the benefit of funding those eponymous 'Arts' degrees (being humanities / liberal arts etc)? In theory, universities aren't just supposed to churn out highly skilled workers, they're supposed to provide us with our next generation of thinkers and artists with a broad-based understanding of society, culture, literature, history, fine art, and philosophy.
The necessary Sorchas to our Ross's? Or maybe the necessary John Humes & Brian Friels to our Dermot Desmonds & Michael O'Learys.

looksee · 23-08-2016 06:17AM

What an exasperating and depressing load of nonsense! Does this entry requirement mean that you get different certification at the end? What has happened to the 'RC teaching cert' or whatever it was called, required to enable people to teach in Catholic schools? Can the churches not see that this is further encouraging rot from within by insisting that potential teachers undertake to teach something that they quite likely actively do not believe in?

And further to Absolam's strawman argument about Arts degrees, what kind of a 'broad based understanding' is engendered by teaching in a narrow, religion based environment?

Peregrinus · 23-08-2016 06:21AM

looksee wrote: »

And further to Absolam's strawman argument about Arts degrees, what kind of a 'broad based understanding' is engendered by teaching in a narrow, religion based environment?

Absolam's point was a response Hotblack's query about public funding for theology degrees at Trinity and NUI Maynooth, which hardly offer a "narrow, religion-based environment". Keep up, looksee!

Absolam · 23-08-2016 06:22AM

looksee wrote: »

What an exasperating and depressing load of nonsense! Does this entry requirement mean that you get different certification at the end? What has happened to the 'RC teaching cert' or whatever it was called, required to enable people to teach in Catholic schools? Can the churches not see that this is further encouraging rot from within by insisting that potential teachers undertake to teach something that they quite likely actively do not believe in?

And further to Absolam's strawman argument about Arts degrees, what kind of a 'broad based understanding' is engendered by teaching in a narrow, religion based environment?

Are you by any chance referring to the other story about the differing points requirements for CoI & RC primary teacher courses?

It's just, this particular article is actually about Arts degrees.

"Stem steams ahead as students abandon the arts ship
Points for arts courses fall to a new low as students question value of such degrees"

As strawman arguments go.... you have to admit it's not one

looksee · 23-08-2016 06:32AM

Sorry, mea culpa, I got mixed up

silverharp · 23-08-2016 09:39AM

The Hindus have been quiet for a while....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/702844/Muslim-migrant-workers-sit-up-Hindu-gang

Muslim migrants humiliated and forced to do sit-ups by Hindu council workers

ELEVEN young Muslim workers were forced to do sit-ups as punishment after refusing to pay for a Hindu festival in India.

recedite · 23-08-2016 08:24PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Absolam's point was a response Hotblack's query about public funding for theology degrees at Trinity and NUI Maynooth, which hardly offer a "narrow, religion-based environment". Keep up, looksee!

Theology is certainly a religion based subject. Anyway if they are reducing the number of places available due to a drop in demand, then that indicates a decreasing public expense. Which is good.

silverharp · 02-09-2016 06:55AM

Saudi Arabian man is jailed for 10 years and given 2,000 lashes for tweeting that he is an atheist and criticising religion

Saudi Arabian man is jailed for 10 years and given 2,000 lashes for tweeting that he is an atheist and criticising religion
The unnamed 28-year-old posted more than 600 tweets before his arrest
He stated that he had the right to express his beliefs
Under Saudi law, professing atheist views is considered terrorism
The man was also fined the equivalent of £4,000

Read more: Saudi man jailed for 10 years and given 2,000 lashes for tweeting atheist beliefs | Daily Mail Online

Michael OBrien · 02-09-2016 10:46AM

silverharp wrote: »

Saudi Arabian man is jailed for 10 years and given 2,000 lashes for tweeting that he is an atheist and criticising religion

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;" Surah 5:33.

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them," Surah 4:89

"You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization." Surah 4.91

This is why we should stop thinking S.A. rulers are our friends or even possibly our friends.

silverharp · 02-09-2016 10:54AM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;" Surah 5:33.

"They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them," Surah 4:89

"You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization." Surah 4.91

This is why we should stop thinking S.A. rulers are our friends or even possibly our friends.

Is any Muslim majority country safe for an Atheist?

Michael OBrien · 02-09-2016 12:34PM

silverharp wrote: »

Is any Muslim majority country safe for an Atheist?

A secular Muslim majority country can be safe for atheists, but the issue is how that works. Basically atheists are viewed as treasonous, especially if they are raised muslim and leave Islam. There is a term for that "murtad fitri". I advise anyone interested in understanding the subtle difference to research that and how muslims view it. Basically the view is that even if you apologise, you should still be killed.

Also I would feel safer with Ahmadiyya or Sufis than standard Shiites and Sunnis.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-09-2016 12:51PM

silverharp wrote: »

Is any Muslim majority country safe for an Atheist?

I felt myself quite happy and safe in Morocco I must say. Aside from the numerous attempts to part me amicably from my money that is. Usually by walking 10 paces in front of me wherever I went and then claiming to have guided me there, at a generously low price.

recedite · 02-09-2016 01:04PM

Unless you had ATHEIST written on the back of your tee-shirt, it would probably be assumed you were a Christian. And Christians, being People of the Book (and not being Jews) are the next best thing to Muslims.

silverharp · 02-09-2016 01:11PM

recedite wrote: »

Unless you had ATHEIST written on the back of your tee-shirt, it would probably be assumed you were a Christian. And Christians, being People of the Book (and not being Jews) are the next best thing to Muslims.

I assume even Muslims have a certain say nothing and you don't rock the boat, but the test has to be can you (as a native) have a safe online or offline presence as an atheist without fake names etc. and be critical of Islam? Without checking I'd guess Albania might be ok but I think you would run out of example fairly quickly.

PopePalpatine · 02-09-2016 02:14PM

What's in Nearly Dead Alive! this week?

looksee · 02-09-2016 05:27PM

I know Alive is in the habit of publishing garbage, but reading that article it was hard to know what they wanted.

I know a lot of family men of the younger generation (ie younger than me!) who make amazingly good fathers and family men. They have lost the assumption that there will be a woman at home to wait on them, and they take at least an equal share of responsibilities in the home and with their children. What is wrong with that? Instead of father being a distant figure who is used to threaten bold children, he is a carer and nurturer and involved with their upbringing.

silverharp · 05-09-2016 08:00AM

looksee wrote: »

I know Alive is in the habit of publishing garbage, but reading that article it was hard to know what they wanted.

I know a lot of family men of the younger generation (ie younger than me!) who make amazingly good fathers and family men. They have lost the assumption that there will be a woman at home to wait on them, and they take at least an equal share of responsibilities in the home and with their children. What is wrong with that? Instead of father being a distant figure who is used to threaten bold children, he is a carer and nurturer and involved with their upbringing.

its a vague article for sure. On your point things change due to how the economy works, technology etc. thinking that the "1950's" was some kind of permanent model for the future is not a sustainable idea. Raising 5 or 6 kids with no technology demanded that a family worked a particular way. 1 or 2 kids with every time saving gadget means its going to be different.
As for the title of the article you could find any number of variants in the press under various guises

Peregrinus · 05-09-2016 08:15AM

The article is so vague that it's hard to find anything specific to disagree with. There are the usual dog-whistles thrown in - "strong family life" (= "no divorce"); "marriage as the most solid foundation for the family" (= "no gay marriage"). But the writer doesn't actually pick up these ideas and run with them. The only concrete affirmative thing the article says is that "a strong family life is the best support, protection and source of happiness" and therefore there are "serious responsibilities for all members, especially parents, to defend and foster love, care and support". Well, gee. Isn't that exactly what looksee's male friends "of the younger generation" are doing?

So, yeah, much as you might like to find "hazards of belief" in this article, it's actually quite hard to find any. Not only is nothing especially hazardous manifested in the article, but nothing at all in the article invokes or depends on any kind of religious belief. In fact, the one indirect reference to religion in the article is criticism of the church (along with politicians, scholars and the media) for paying "little attention" to the supposed crisis in masculinity.

I've no doubt you could pick up on some of the themes in the article and work them up into something fairly hazardous. Because it's in Alive we kind of assume that it will be a hazard of belief rather than, say, a Donald Trumpish kind of hazard, though it could go either way. But until it does, there isn't much to criticise.

silverharp · 05-09-2016 08:39AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The article is so vague that it's hard to find anything specific to disagree with. There are the usual dog-whistles thrown in - "strong family life" (= "no divorce"); "marriage as the most solid foundation for the family" (= "no gay marriage"). But the writer doesn't actually pick up these ideas and run with them. The only concrete affirmative thing the article says is that "a strong family life is the best support, protection and source of happiness" and therefore there are "serious responsibilities for all members, especially parents, to defend and foster love, care and support". Well, gee. Isn't that exactly what looksee's male friends "of the younger generation" are doing?

So, yeah, much as you might like to find "hazards of belief" in this article, it's actually quite hard to find any. Not only is nothing especially hazardous manifested in the article, but nothing at all in the article invokes or depends on any kind of religious belief. In fact, the one indirect reference to religion in the article is criticism of the church (along with politicians, scholars and the media) for paying "little attention" to the supposed crisis in masculinity.

I've no doubt you could pick up on some of the themes in the article and work them up into something fairly hazardous. Because it's in Alive we kind of assume that it will be a hazard of belief rather than, say, a Donald Trumpish kind of hazard, though it could go either way. But until it does, there isn't much to criticise.

Its a big question but the title has has a certain shaming edge to it. there is no female equivalent of "man up". the article starts with some joke about women running the country so Ill take it its a take on what are men's role in society which is topic that is being discussed elsewhere. I wouldn't describe it as a hazard of belief as its not a religiously owned topic.

Peregrinus · 05-09-2016 08:56AM

I don't doubt that the article underpins - for the writer, anyway - a distinctly non-egalitarian view of "proper" gender roles. But he never actually says so.

recedite · 05-09-2016 10:07AM

I think the author may be harking back to a certain kind of "family equality" that may have existed when when gender roles were more fixed.
That is, if the general model was one man working and one woman at home, 50% of people worked outside the home. So although each gender was boxed into a role, in theory at least they both had access to the comforts of a stable home family life and a shared salary.

Whereas now, roughly one third of society still functions like that. But the other 2/3 is split into families where both parents have jobs, and families where neither parents have a job. So these situations can give rise to different sets of problems within the families.

Overall though, net "freedom" has increased, which is a good thing.

silverharp · 05-09-2016 10:50AM

recedite wrote: »

I think the author may be harking back to a certain kind of "family equality" that may have existed when when gender roles were more fixed.
That is, if the general model was one man working and one woman at home, 50% of people worked outside the home. So although each gender was boxed into a role, in theory at least they both had access to the comforts of a stable home family life and a shared salary.

Whereas now, roughly one third of society still functions like that. But the other 2/3 is split into families where both parents have jobs, and families where neither parents have a job. So these situations can give rise to different sets of problems within the families.

Overall though, net "freedom" has increased, which is a good thing.

it creates a different set of winners and losers. Certainly more potential choice at the individual level however in reality its arguably more difficult today to achieve some of the things that would have been taken as the done thing in the past. If you look at somewhere like Japan "the cost" of having a family has gone up and the economy isn't facilitating the choices people would like to make. I'd imagine the same kind of pressures are creeping in to western countries too.
Its pretty clear that some social indicators are worse now than in the past and that will have negative consequences for some people

robindch · 05-09-2016 11:10AM

looksee wrote: »

I know a lot of family men of the younger generation (ie younger than me!) who make amazingly good fathers and family men. They have lost the assumption that there will be a woman at home to wait on them, and they take at least an equal share of responsibilities in the home and with their children. What is wrong with that?

I believe the church wants the men to be like it - out there oppressing women and generally restricting what they can do.

recedite · 05-09-2016 12:53PM

We don't know what society will be like in 50 years time, but you can be sure of one thing, there will be some people looking back with nostalgia at the current era, and others looking back with disdain.

I'd say there will be more part-time workers. Currently job-share arrangements are common enough in female dominated professions such as primary school teaching, but in most jobs it would be frowned upon and seen as a lack of commitment not to put in 40 -50 hours per week.

Also some right wing policies are likely, such as less social welfare for unproductive people, and greater selectivity of immigrants for potentially productive people.

And some left wing policies too, such as universal state education and healthcare, free at the point of use.

Possibly the elimination of social welfare payments altogether and replacement by a state "living wage" arrangement allocated to all citizens, whereby they are free to earn whatever they can in addition to receiving that.

silverharp · 05-09-2016 01:30PM

recedite wrote: »

We don't know what society will be like in 50 years time, but you can be sure of one thing, there will be some people looking back with nostalgia at the current era, and others looking back with disdain.

I'd say there will be more part-time workers. Currently job-share arrangements are common enough in female dominated professions such as primary school teaching, but in most jobs it would be frowned upon and seen as a lack of commitment not to put in 40 -50 hours per week.

Also some right wing policies are likely, such as less social welfare for unproductive people, and greater selectivity of immigrants for potentially productive people.

And some left wing policies too, such as universal state education and healthcare, free at the point of use.

Possibly the elimination of social welfare payments altogether and replacement by a state "living wage" arrangement allocated to all citizens, whereby they are free to earn whatever they can in addition to receiving that.

there is going to be more of the "gig" economy. Im not sure what the answer is, I tend to distrust a policy that encourages dysfunctional behaviour or encourages a misallocation of resources though.
I'd normally dismiss a universal wage as just another attempt to introduce communism but I did listen to a talk by 2 neutrals on it but still not sure about it. You would certainly need to close down migration from the third world for starters Also the "state" wouldn't be funding this, taxpayers and companies would so if taxes went up just so that people could work on their "music" or run their loss making "farmers market stand" would the productive people just shoot off somewhere else?
Its the paradox of comfort and safety maybe? Our evolution and genes are based on us wanting to survive the challenge of living in a difficult environment. Yet the relative comfort of the modern age is turning some of us into the neurotic off spring of a failing family of aristocrats.

recedite · 05-09-2016 01:44PM

silverharp wrote: »

You would certainly need to close down migration from the third world for starters Also the "state" wouldn't be funding this, taxpayers and companies would..

Some of the funding would come from corporate tax and revenues from natural resources; both are areas where tax evasion/avoidance are rampant in the Irish situation currently.
But I agree most would have to come from personal taxation. If people feel they are all pulling together in society, they will accept higher taxes, but only as long as everyone gets access to good public services. The Scandinavian countries have been tending towards this kind of model from the 1960's to the 1990's. Unfortunately that economic model is over now for societies such as Sweden, because they have allowed in too many people who have no intention of contributing to the state's kitty.

silverharp · 05-09-2016 02:16PM

recedite wrote: »

Some of the funding would come from corporate tax and revenues from natural resources; both are areas where tax evasion/avoidance are rampant in the Irish situation currently.
But I agree most would have to come from personal taxation. If people feel they are all pulling together in society, they will accept higher taxes, but only as long as everyone gets access to good public services. The Scandinavian countries have been tending towards this kind of model from the 1960's to the 1990's. Unfortunately that economic model is over now for societies such as Sweden, because they have allowed in too many people who have no intention of contributing to the state's kitty.

good question about Sweden in particular as it doesn't have a free windfall like its neighbour, is it blowing it by a poor migration strategy ? definitely speeding it up for sure. the other question, is the Swedish economy staying as productive in terms of what built it up in the first place? Every Western country has had big productivity gains since the 70's because of technology and while some of the "service economy" increase is natural you cant end up in a situation where the numbers of gov. workers or Education and Health just keeps growing faster than the real economy.

The Hazards of Belief

Comments