Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Secularism: Mod note in first post
Options
Comments
-
Well, I suppose you have wikipedia, who you've used as a source on the subject;By whose definition? Again from the national secular society;
I'd tend to go with this in that I'd have no problem with the state funding schools run by religious organisations so long as those organisations did not use the school to promote their religion.We all share hospitals, schools, the police and the services of local authorities. It is essential that these public services are secular at the point of use so that no-one is disadvantaged or denied access on grounds of religious belief (or non-belief.) All state-funded schools should be non-religious in character, with children being educated together regardless of their parents' religion. When a public body grants a contract for the provision of services to an organisation affiliated to a particular religion or belief, such services must be delivered in a neutral manner, with no attempt to promote the ideas of that faith group.
,
and a definition of secular by Merriam Webster is
whilst dictionary.com tells us that secular culture is
From your national secular society's view, I'd say they're looking for a State mandated secular society, rather than a secular State. I'm not convinced that the fact that we all share State funded services mean that it is essential that they are secular at the point of use; in fact I'm pretty convinced that it's not essential; I think they need only provide the service that they set out to provide.0 -
No, I don't think so. If it depended on the actions of the patron body, then it wouldn't be regardless of their religious stance, it would depend on their religious stance.Well that would depend on the actions of the patron body, wouldn't it?
That describes a secular school though, or a secular education. Not a secular State, which is blind to whether the school or education offers a religious or secular perspective on the subject of religion.As you say, a secular stance is one which is neutral on religion. Therefore, the teaching of religion ought to be descriptive, teaching students what different religions believe without stating that any one religion is correct. Similarly such a school would have no faith formation since this has no bearing on education and simply exists to indoctrinate people into the religion.
Well, that's not really looking at this, that's looking at a carefully constructed attempt to give the appearance that funding a school which teaches religion is inappropriate. Still, if we remove the spurious notion that allowing a school to teach religion is paying to promote a religion, the answer is obviously that the logical basis for both schools receiving State funding is that they both provide an education that parents choose for their children, and it's not up to the State to tell them it refuses to allow a choice.Another way to look at it is this. Let's say <...> on what logical basis does this second school have any entitlement to state funding? Why should the state pay to promote this or any religion?
Well, my idea (and Professor Moriarty's) was about withdrawing funding from religious schools and giving it to secular schools, but either way, I'm not wrong. If you deny someone something purely because they're a theist, that's anti-theist. Favouring schools which are actively anti-theist would just be more anti-theist. Don't forget, we're not actually talking about a State allowing people to use state money to promote religion, we're talking about a State providing for education without telling parents what education to provide.Further, your idea that a state which funds a secular school but refuses to fund a religious school is anti-theist not secular is wrong. If the state were to refuse funding from religious schools but allow funding for schools which actively denigrated the idea of religion and taught students that religion is bad or dangerous for society, then that would be anti-theist. A state which doesn't allow people to use state money to promote religion isn't anti-theist, it's secular.
No, you're right, as I said at the start of this post it's not about the patron. The State's responsibility here is limited to it's obligation to ensure all children receive a certain minimum standard of education; so practically no responsibility for ensuring uniformity of education, or that all children are educated to the same standard. Which should be readily apparent; montessori is hardly uniform with hslda, and children who merely remain in school until sixteen before exiting education aren't educated to the same standard as those who go on to Phds, and the State isn't legislating to remedy either discrepancy, because it has no responsibility to do so.As I said, the question is not about who the patron of the school is but how religion is dealt with in the school. The state also has a responsibility to ensure uniformity of education that all children are educated to the same standard so that none are unfairly disadvantaged, like say being taught that evolution is "only a theory" or that believing things on faith is a good thing.
Whether or not someone is unfairly disadvantaged by learning that evolution is only a theory (which to be fair, it is) or that believing things on faith is a good thing is probably a matter of opinion. There certainly seem to be happy successful people who have learnt both.0 -
.
Or; all citizens should pay their taxes, the State should be responsible for funding schools, and religious people should have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Problem solved; we have that already.If it helps at all though, I think we've only had one single poster offer the argument 'this is a Catholic country' on A&A in well over a year; it tends to be a phrase far more often used by anti-theists on behalf of those they are attacking. So there haven't been so many of those arguments put forward really....
Just saying...0 -
Just saying what, exactly?Just saying...
I'm genuinely confused. Are you suggesting that Absolam's position is tantamount to a "this is a Catholic country" argument? 'Cause, if that's what you're saying, I'm not seeing it.
And, if that's not what you're saying, my apologies for suggesting that it is, but can you tell me what you are saying?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Or; all citizens should pay their taxes, the State should be responsible for funding schools, and religious people should have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Problem solved; we have that already.
Except the problem isn't solved because the overwhelming majority of schools have a religious ethos, mostly of one particular faith. There is no choice for non-religious people in many towns around the country. My hometown has eight secondary schools and six of those are Catholic. One is CoI and one is "inter denominational". Doesn't really leave a lot of choice for non-religious parents.
I think the majority of schools should be non-religious, no specific ethos. I don't think they should bash religion or anything of the sort. In fact, all schools should teach religion in a "here are the facts about multiple religions" way, without an agenda. Leave the religion-specific education of children to their parents and their respective religious leaders.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with being religious, but faith is a personal matter that you should be teaching your kids at home or in church/mosque/temple. They're at school to learn other things.0 -
That depends, I suppose, on what you think 'the problem' is. Professor Moriarty's problem was the notion of the State only funding secular schools and forcing religious educators into self funding schools. With regards to what you feel yourself, I think people setting up non religious schools for non religious parents is a great idea if they want to, but I would say that children are at school to learn what their parents want them to learn; if you want to teach your kids faith in a State school you're perfectly entitled to. Constitutionally entitled to, even.sunshine and showers wrote: »Except the problem isn't solved because the overwhelming majority of schools have a religious ethos, mostly of one particular faith. <...> faith is a personal matter that you should be teaching your kids at home or in church/mosque/temple. They're at school to learn other things.0 -
Again you are making a huge assumption here:Or; all citizens should pay their taxes, the State should be responsible for funding schools, and religious people should have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Problem solved; we have that already.
How do you know that the majority of parents with kids in school are catholic?
How do you know that the majority of parents who are about to send their kids to schools are catholic?
How do you know that the majority of these people are actually in favour of sending their kids to catholic schools or are in favour of having the majority of schools be church controlled?
How do you know that the level of non-catholic schools matches the level of demand for them?
The answer is that you have no idea, you are just assuming that these are all the case because it's easier for you.
So the notion that the populace has decided anything on the matter is nonsense.
And again, you pretend that this is a simple or easy matter for anyone to do.I think people setting up non religious schools for non religious parents is a great idea if they want to
Why do you think that it is so easy?0 -
Well, I don't know about again, but I do know I'm not the one making huge assumptions; I didn't say anything about Catholics, you're the one assuming that I'm talking about them. And assuming I've offered a notion that the populace have decided something, since I obviously didn't. It's quite a lot to assume from something as simple as "religious people should have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children", would you not say?Again you are making a huge assumption here:
How do you know that the majority of parents with kids in school are catholic?
How do you know that the majority of parents who are about to send their kids to schools are catholic?
How do you know that the majority of these people are actually in favour of sending their kids to catholic schools or are in favour of having the majority of schools be church controlled?
How do you know that the level of non-catholic schools matches the level of demand for them?
The answer is that you have no idea, you are just assuming that these are all the case because it's easier for you. So the notion that the populace has decided anything on the matter is nonsense.
And just a bit more assumption to ice it with? I never said anything about it being easy. If you asked, I'd say I reckon it would be quite difficult, it would require dedication, commitment, and idealism. Anyone who commits themself to educating others and goes to all the effort of setting up a school to do so according to their beliefs has my respect.And again, you pretend that this is a simple or easy matter for anyone to do.
Why do you think that it is so easy?0 -
That depends, I suppose, on what you think 'the problem' is. Professor Moriarty's problem was the notion of the State only funding secular schools and forcing religious educators into self funding schools. With regards to what you feel yourself, I think people setting up non religious schools for non religious parents is a great idea if they want to, but I would say that children are at school to learn what their parents want them to learn; if you want to teach your kids faith in a State school you're perfectly entitled to. Constitutionally entitled to, even.
Why should non-religious parents have to set up specific schools though? Why does the Catholic religion get to continue to run the majority of schools in the country by what appears to be default?
If non-religious schools are the norm, religious parents will teach their children about their faith anyway by taking them to church, etc. There is no massive discrimination taking place as nobody is saying you cannot practice your religion, it just won't be a heavy feature of school life.
When religious schools are the norm, parents end up with no choice but to send their child to a school whose ethos they don't subscribe to because there are no other options. So their child ends up being taught things the parents may not be comfortable with, or the child is excluded from such education and made to feel different from all the other children.
On balance, the higher level of discrimination is the status quo for non-religious parents. Actually, not even specifically non-religious parents, but parents who are not Catholic because the majority of schools are. There's no real "loss" to making the majority of schools nor Catholic. Parents can still take their children to mass and Sunday school. You don't go to school to learn about one specific religion in the first place.
With the changing social structure of Ireland, it makes more sense for the majority of schools to be non-denominational, preferably secular.
I experienced this issue myself when I repeated the leaving cert. The only school in town that had a specific programme for repeating was a Catholic school so I had to go there. I do not identify as Catholic. There was iconography everywhere (which I found off putting if I'm honest), daily prayers (some teachers started every class with a prayer) and I was made to attend mass, even when I explained that I did not want to. There were Muslim students who had to go too. It's hardly offensive to have to sit through mass and some prayers, I know, but it's the principle of the thing. I did not want to and yet...
It hardly seems fair to say "well that was the ethos of the school the parents chose" when there is no other choice available.0 -
Advertisement
-
That depends, I suppose, on what you think 'the problem' is. Professor Moriarty's problem was the notion of the State only funding secular schools and forcing religious educators into self funding schools. With regards to what you feel yourself, I think people setting up non religious schools for non religious parents is a great idea if they want to, but I would say that children are at school to learn what their parents want them to learn; if you want to teach your kids faith in a State school you're perfectly entitled to. Constitutionally entitled to, even.
Lest there be any confusion: My point was that all children should have access to state-funded secular schools. People of religion who want their children to learn about their religion should set up self-funded schools where their children can learn about their religion. So, their education would take place in the state school and their religious education would take place elsewhere in a place that has nothing whatsoever to do with the state.0 -
Professor Moriarty wrote: »Lest there be any confusion: My point was that all children should have access to state-funded secular schools. People of religion who want their children to learn about their religion should set up self-funded schools where their children can learn about their religion. So, their education would take place in the state school and their religious education would take place elsewhere in a place that has nothing whatsoever to do with the state.
I do believe we have the exact same point then.0 -
You said:And assuming I've offered a notion that the populace have decided something, since I obviously didn't.
So again, why do you think that most people in Ireland want catholic ethos schools?Or; all citizens should pay their taxes, the State should be responsible for funding schools, and religious people should have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Problem solved; we have that already.
What are you basing this on?
If you are not claiming that, then why do you think that people are able to decide what education they want for their child?
Yet you keep presenting it as if it's a viable option for everyone and that the only reason people don't take it, then they obviously don't care that much...And just a bit more assumption to ice it with? I never said anything about it being easy. If you asked, I'd say I reckon it would be quite difficult, it would require dedication, commitment, and idealism. Anyone who commits themself to educating others and goes to all the effort of setting up a school to do so according to their beliefs has my respect.
You also keep pretending that there is no barriers or obstacles to setting up new schools when there are.
You also continue to pretend that it's a level unbiased playing field and that catholic schools don't already have advantages, such as being favoured by the state openly in times past.0 -
Well, I'd say anyone who wants to provide a particular education for their children needs to either find a school that will do it for them, create a school that will do it for them, or do it themselves. NO one else is responsible for it after all.sunshine and showers wrote: »Why should non-religious parents have to set up specific schools though?
Probably because in many cases people of the Catholic religion finding no school created them, and in other cases parents decided that was the education they wanted for their children? I think the historical aspects, both factual and fictional were cover more substantively on the School Patronage thread.sunshine and showers wrote: »Why does the Catholic religion get to continue to run the majority of schools in the country by what appears to be default?
My guess is that if that is what parents want, then that is what will end up happening; they'll find or create the schools they want and the ones they don't want will fall by the wayside.sunshine and showers wrote: »If non-religious schools are the norm <...>it makes more sense for the majority of schools to be non-denominational, preferably secular.0 -
It's hardly confusing; you have a notion of the State only funding secular schools and forcing religious educators into self funding schools and want to know the problem with it. I told you the problem with it; it's anti theist.Professor Moriarty wrote: »Lest there be any confusion: My point was that all children should have access to state-funded secular schools. People of religion who want their children to learn about their religion should set up self-funded schools where their children can learn about their religion. So, their education would take place in the state school and their religious education would take place elsewhere in a place that has nothing whatsoever to do with the state.0 -
It's hardly confusing; you have a notion of the State only funding secular schools and forcing religious educators into self funding schools and want to know the problem with it. I told you the problem with it; it's anti theist.
With respect, I couldn't have made it any clearer. And I didn't use the term 'religious educator'. Again:
1. All children should be given their education in secular (i.e. not connected with religious or spiritual matters_ state-funded schools.
2. People of religion who want their children to learn about their faith should send their children to self-funded institutions where they will be instructed on that faith.
This stance is not anti-theist. It neither supports or discourages people learning about their faith. It is a neutral stance.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Are you suggesting that Absolam's position is tantamount to a "this is a Catholic country" argument? 'Cause, if that's what you're saying, I'm not seeing it.
Absolam's argument is exactly that if you look at it.Absolam wrote:Or; all citizens should pay their taxes, the State should be responsible for funding schools, and religious people should have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Problem solved; we have that already.
The implication is that the current status quo is what people want with the vast majority of schools being Catholic ethos, on the basis that religious schools are being funded by the taxes by and large by Catholics. Or more simply, suck it up, it is the will of the Catholic majority.
Of course this is a nonsense, with even the likes of archbishop Martin long acknowledging that a large number of Catholic schools need to change patronage. It is further evidenced by the fact that most secular school places in ET schools are actually taken up by Catholics even though in every case there is an option for a Catholic ethos school place while the same Catholic schools are discriminating against non-Catholics. The fact that this has been flagged as a breach of human rights by the UN and Amnesty International further shows are education system is very far from secular.0 -
I did indeed, and we do have that already. The State is responsible for funding schools, and religious people have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Do they not?You said:Or; all citizens should pay their taxes, the State should be responsible for funding schools, and religious people should have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Problem solved; we have that already.
I'm not basing it on anything; you made it up, not me. What exactly do you think prevents people from deciding what education they want for their children? As distinct, obviously, from obtaining the education they want for their children.So again, why do you think that most people in Ireland want catholic ethos schools? What are you basing this on? If you are not claiming that, then why do you think that people are able to decide what education they want for their child?
Maybe that's where we differ so. I don't think something has to be easy to be viable, I think if you want something you usually have to work for it. And whilst I've too much respect for the effort all parents make to say that the only reason people don't take it is they obviously don't care that much, the idea came to you from somewhere. Perhaps it's your own?Yet you keep presenting it as if it's a viable option for everyone and that the only reason people don't take it, then they obviously don't care that much...
I've never pretended any such thing. Seriously, why not just talk about what I've posted instead of making stuff up?You also keep pretending that there is no barriers or obstacles to setting up new schools when there are.
You also continue to pretend that it's a level unbiased playing field and that catholic schools don't already have advantages, such as being favoured by the state openly in times past.0 -
It's hardly confusing; you have a notion of the State only funding secular schools and forcing religious educators into self funding schools and want to know the problem with it. I told you the problem with it; it's anti theist.
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.0 -
I beg to differ; my argument is not that at all. Though I get that anyone inclined to disagree with me on principle is likely to jump to conclude that whatever I'm saying 'we have already' must be what they don't want, rather than what I actually mentioned in the previous sentence.Absolam's argument is exactly that if you look at it.
Nope. Rather than reading more than what is said into something, you could simply take it as written (and intended); we currently have a circumstance where the State is responsible for funding schools, and religious people have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. The problem of what we should have is solved, because that is what we should have.The implication is that the current status quo is what people want with the vast majority of schools being Catholic ethos, on the basis that religious schools are being funded by the taxes by and large by Catholics. Or more simply, suck it up, it is the will of the Catholic majority.
Well aren't I glad it wasn't my point! And also glad we don't have a State mandated and enforced secular education system, now you mention it. Far better to have a secular State which allows parents to choose their childrens education.Of course this is a nonsense <...> are education system is very far from secular.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.0 -
Sure. Don't non-religious parents? Parents of non-majority religions?I did indeed, and we do have that already. The State is responsible for funding schools, and religious people have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. Do they not?
Why should catholic/religious schools be disproportionately represented?
Lack of options. Lack of will to provide the options by they people who should be providing those options. Unfair bias towards Catholic institutions.I'm not basing it on anything; you made it up, not me. What exactly do you think prevents people from deciding what education they want for their children? As distinct, obviously, from obtaining the education they want for their children.
Again, you claim that the majority of people send their children to catholic schools because those people prefer catholic ethos schools.
If this is not the case, then your position is flawed.
And that's called privilege.Maybe that's where we differ so. I don't think something has to be easy to be viable, I think if you want something you usually have to work for it.
Lots of parents simply do not have the option to set up their own school. It's confusing why you think it is.
Even if they do have the time, skills, money and connections to actually organise this (which most people do not have), then these parents will still run into state level barriers that would stop them dead.
So what should these parents do, in your opinion? Just bite the bullet and just send their kids to a catholic school?
Whoops, turns out they'll have trouble with that too, cause catholic schools are legally allowed to discriminate...
I guess everyone should pretend to be a religion they are not just to make sure they get a place in a viable school for them...
Also, could you explain why you disagree with the UN and various other bodies that conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights?0 -
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.
The state has an obligation to offer all children the same education. Segregating children on the basis of religion is not in alignment with the principles of a true republic or a healthy society.0 -
Yes, you're right, they do. And having decided what they want, some of them even go out and set up schools so that they can provide it. I doubt any of them say it's easy, but it certainly seems be viable. I think you know already why catholic/religious schools are disproportionately represented, so should we just dispense with the rhetoric and agree; the Christian educational organizations made a real effort to ensure that they would provide the education their people wanted. They went out and made it happen.Sure. Don't non-religious parents? Parents of non-majority religions? Why should catholic/religious schools be disproportionately represented?
So people can only decide to want something from options someone else is providing? Nonsense. Who exactly do you think 'the people who should be providing those options' are?Lack of options. Lack of will to provide the options by they people who should be providing those options. Unfair bias towards Catholic institutions.
Having to work for what you want is called privilege? Funny, exactly the opposite where I come from.And that's called privilege.0 -
we currently have a circumstance where the State is responsible for funding schools, and religious people have the same right as everyone else to decide what education they want for their children. The problem of what we should have is solved, because that is what we should have.
Rubbish. People have the right to want whatever they like, for example I want to win the lotto. Until such time as the government of the day firstly asks the citizenship what education system they want and secondly acts on that information, what people want bears little relation to what the state delivers. What small successes we've seen in this country in terms of progressing a more secular education system have largely happened despite the DoE rather than because of them.
The similarity to playing the lotto and getting the desired state funded education for your children in this country actually has some stark similarities. The notion that what we have suffices is patently not the case.0 -
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: »The state has an obligation to offer all children the same education. Segregating children on the basis of religion is not in alignment with the principles of a true republic or a healthy society.
As for what you think is in alignment with the principles of a true republic or a healthy society, well, I reckon you'll get as many different versions of that as there are people in a true republic or a healthy society. You won't even have many agree what a 'true' republic is. At least if they get to exercise their opinion on the kind of education they want to give their children, you know it's some kind of republic. But if they can't even do that.....0 -
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.People have the right to want whatever they like, for example I want to win the lotto. Until such time as the government of the day firstly asks the citizenship what education system they want and secondly acts on that information, what people want bears little relation to what the state delivers.0 -
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.
As for what you think is in alignment with the principles of a true republic or a healthy society, well, I reckon you'll get as many different versions of that as there are people in a true republic or a healthy society. You won't even have many agree what a 'true' republic is. At least if they get to exercise their opinion on the kind of education they want to give their children, you know it's some kind of republic. But if they can't even do that.....
He got what he's entitled to under the constitution - a primary education. Hopefully it was secular...
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?0 -
Yes, viable if you have time, money, connections and skills.Yes, you're right, they do. And having decided what they want, some of them even go out and set up schools so that they can provide it. I doubt any of them say it's easy, but it certainly seems be viable.
Otherwise, what should parents who do not have all of these things do?
Pretend to be catholic?
Again, you are assuming that this is the case.Y
I think you know already why catholic/religious schools are disproportionately represented, so should we just dispense with the rhetoric and agree; the Christian educational organizations made a real effort to ensure that they would provide the education their people wanted. They went out and made it happen.
Why do you think that the majority of people want religious ethos schools?
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?
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.Y
So people can only decide to want something from options someone else is providing? Nonsense. Who exactly do you think 'the people who should be providing those options' are?
Believing that it's only a matter of hard work and that everyone has equal opportunity. That's what you are doing.Y
Having to work for what you want is called privilege? Funny, exactly the opposite where I come from.
That's privilege.
Is every person who wants a secular education able to provide all the things necessary to set up a school?
Does everyone have time, money, skills and connections to set up a school?
Is everyone lucky enough to live in a place where such a thing is even an option?
If not, please detail what these people should do. (FYI, Homeschooling is equally not a viable option for everyone for all of the above reasons.)
Also, again, could you explain why you disagree with the UN and other organisations who have concluded the Irish system constitutes a breach of human rights?0 -
Advertisement
-
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?
Again, you are assuming that this is the case.
Why do you think that the majority of people want religious ethos schools?
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?
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.
Believing that it's only a matter of hard work and that everyone has equal opportunity. That's what you are doing.
That's privilege.
Is every person who wants a secular education able to provide all the things necessary to set up a school?
Does everyone have time, money, skills and connections to set up a school?
Is everyone lucky enough to live in a place where such a thing is even an option?
If not, please detail what these people should do. (FYI, Homeschooling is equally not a viable option for everyone for all of the above reasons.)
Also, again, could you explain why you disagree with the UN and other organisations who have concluded the Irish system constitutes a breach of human rights?
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.0
Advertisement