All religious schools should be private.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I don't know if any atheists have bothered their hoop setting up a school to teach their ethos. They seem to think that the state should do it for them.

Which atheists are espousing that position exactly? And what is the content of the "ethos" specifically?

I know for example that Atheist Ireland have teamed up with the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland, and the Ahmadi Muslims of Ireland, in order to espouse an all inclusive approach with them and to end religious discrimination in access to schools and situations such as the one where a Muslim Girl had ash put on her forehead during Ash Wednesday and so on.

And in fact nearly every time their chairman is on the radio he makes a point of saying that they would be JUST as opposed to a curriculum teaching atheism as they are opposed to a curriculum teaching Catholicism.

Manach

To those complaining about the current set-up and the OP beating their breast at a chance to express their faux outrage a counter-point. Consider what one of the leading writers intellectuals (Thomas Sowell) has written on US public schools, being places where in a majority of case where a bureacractic indifference means poor academic results and it is a place where parents have little if any say on the core moral ciriculum. Given for example how little our neighest neighbour in the UK cares about parental input as well, the OP should recognised their pursuit of progressive purity means sacrificing kids' education.

salmocab

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Non-denominational doesn't mean what you think it does. Google "non-denominational Church Dublin " to see examples of what it means .

In terms of what you mean, I don't know if any atheists have bothered their hoop setting up a school to teach their ethos. They seem to think that the state should do it for them.

Who’s they? Most atheists just aren’t bothered by this issue they have their own beliefs and are happy for others to have theirs. The atheists who moan about all things religious are the equivalent of bible thumpers who think everything has to be about their beliefs. The reality of both sides is that it’s generally just normal people getting on with their lives and doing their own thing. As usual in our society we let out views be tempered by the noisy minority.

Manach wrote: »

the OP should recognised their pursuit of progressive purity means sacrificing kids' education.

Not sure that follows at all. I can think of no situation, least of all that of education, where pointing to one or two examples of people doing it wrong means it will always be done wrong. You have a level of pessimism I guess I just don't share.

But it is not uncommon. For example when I go into threads on legalising and regulating sex work people point to examples where a country has tried and failed to do so well, as if it evidences the idea that doing so CAN never work.

Rather than looking at the problems in the US and UK systems and throwing our hands up in defeat, we should look at their successes and failures and learn from them if and when we Implement any changes of our own. I think we can look at progress while also looking to improve education, not sacrifice it.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Non-denominational doesn't mean what you think it does. Google "non-denominational Church Dublin " to see examples of what it means .

In terms of what you mean, I don't know if any atheists have bothered their hoop setting up a school to teach their ethos. They seem to think that the state should do it for them.

Athiests don't need to set up a school to teach their ethos - every school already does this - it just does an ethos they don't subscribe to alongside it.

Danzy

Schools like educate together ones are more religious, in ways, more about imparting a belief system than nearly all religious denominated schools.

Danzy

salmocab wrote: »

Who’s they? Most atheists just aren’t bothered by this issue they have their own beliefs and are happy for others to have theirs. The atheists who moan about all things religious are the equivalent of bible thumpers who think everything has to be about their beliefs. The reality of both sides is that it’s generally just normal people getting on with their lives and doing their own thing. As usual in our society we let out views be tempered by the noisy minority.

Hmm huh, Preach it brother. I hear ya.*

* I agree with you.

Danzy wrote: »

Schools like educate together ones are more religious, in ways, more about imparting a belief system than nearly all religious denominated schools.

Teaching about religion is sompletely different to being "religious".

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Strictly speaking, no - the Department calls the shots. And if you want their money, you stick to their rules.

Now, that's NOT saying you can't develop your own ethos alongside it. It's saying that if you choose to do so - while providing a service to the public funded by the State - you have to provide a secular option for parents and kids who do not wish to be subjected to said ethos at the times you do so. You also provide your own instructors (again - this should be common sense - they'll do a better job) and agree to not discriminate with regard to admissions.

If only that were the case, but it’s not, not by a long shot, and even the DES will tell you that themselves -

Under both the Constitution and the Education Act (1998), parents have a right to have their children opt out of religion classes if they wish.

A spokesman for the Department of Education confirmed this was the case and said practical arrangements to accommodate children whose parents have chosen this option is a matter for each individual school.

However, the campaign group Atheist Ireland claims it is aware of dozens of cases where parents have been told the subject is a core subject and the right to opt-out should not arise. “It’s like the public services card – it’s mandatory, but not compulsory,” said Jane Donnelly of Atheist Ireland.

Parents finding it ‘impossible’ to opt children out of religion education

And of course there’s war about the admissions policy which still permits schools to discriminate in their admissions policies in order to maintain the ethos of the school.

So it’s not quite whoever pays the piper calls the tune. A closer analogy would be Taylor Swift making tickets for her concerts available to the public for €200, but the audience who choose to pay that kind of money still don’t get any say in her performance. That’s the job of her management, or the Boards of Management of the schools in this particular case, will make the decisions as to how they deliver education in accordance with the ethos of their Patrons, not the DES.

As regards providing their own instructors, there is a stipulation that any teachers who wish to be employed by the Board of Management of a Catholic school must hold a Certificate in Catholic Religious Education -

Recognition of Qualifications to Teach Catholic Religious Education

Essentially, it’s not required that they are a member of the Catholic Church at all, but it is a requirement that they have the knowledge to impart Catholic education.

Mrs OBumble

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Athiests don't need to set up a school to teach their ethos - every school already does this - it just does an ethos they don't subscribe to alongside it.

Ah, no.

Atheism is a specific belief that God does not exist.

Religious schools do not teach this.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ah, no.

Atheism is a specific belief that God does not exist.

Religious schools do not teach this.

Slight misunderstanding - I said "ethos" not belief. All schools have an ethos, not all schools are religious.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If only that were the case, but it’s not, not by a long shot, and even the DES will tell you that themselves -

Under both the Constitution and the Education Act (1998), parents have a right to have their children opt out of religion classes if they wish.

A spokesman for the Department of Education confirmed this was the case and said practical arrangements to accommodate children whose parents have chosen this option is a matter for each individual school.

However, the campaign group Atheist Ireland claims it is aware of dozens of cases where parents have been told the subject is a core subject and the right to opt-out should not arise. “It’s like the public services card – it’s mandatory, but not compulsory,” said Jane Donnelly of Atheist Ireland.

Parents finding it ‘impossible’ to opt children out of religion education

And of course there’s war about the admissions policy which still permits schools to discriminate in their admissions policies in order to maintain the ethos of the school.

So it’s not quite whoever pays the piper calls the tune. A closer analogy would be Taylor Swift making tickets for her concerts available to the public for €200, but the audience who choose to pay that kind of money still don’t get any say in her performance. That’s the job of her management, or the Boards of Management of the schools in this particular case, will make the decisions as to how they deliver education in accordance with the ethos of their Patrons, not the DES.

As regards providing their own instructors, there is a stipulation that any teachers who wish to be employed by the Board of Management of a Catholic school must hold a Certificate in Catholic Religious Education -

Recognition of Qualifications to Teach Catholic Religious Education

Essentially, it’s not required that they are a member of the Catholic Church at all, but it is a requirement that they have the knowledge to impart Catholic education.

So, they're breaking the law - withhold funding until compliance is sorted.

That said, if I was a parent in such a scenario, I'd be taking it up with the school theselces and reminding them directly of their constitution responsibilities that they signed up to.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, they're breaking the law - withhold funding until compliance is sorted.

That said, if I was a parent in such a scenario, I'd be taking it up with the school theselces and reminding them directly of their constitution responsibilities that they signed up to.

They’re not breaking the law though, they’re entirely compliant with the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law (if you’ll pardon the pun).

Parents do take it up with the schools in question (that’s what the article was about), and the Boards of Management aren’t long reminding the parents, and the DES, that they are compliant with their constitutional obligations, while also exercising their constitutional rights -

Ardscoil na Mara’s religious policy describes the school as being “immersed in the Edmund Rice (ERST) and the Religious Sisters of Charity traditions” and being “committed to developing the full potential of each student, within a welcoming Christian atmosphere”.

It says its official policy is that religious education is regarded as “an integral part of our programme and a very important subject throughout school”.

The policy adds that it respects the rights of parents who require that their child be excluded from religious education.

One option is that a parent should remove their child from the school premises for the duration of religious education.

Another option, according to its policy, is staying within the classroom following an “educationally appropriate activity” but cannot include study or homework.

The school principal, Pádraig Cawley, declined to comment on the individual case, but said the school promoted inclusivity and was always available to meet with parents to resolve any issues.

eviltwin

I don't know of a single atheist who wants their child educated that there is no God. Most of us just want to see a mixed school system where children are educated with other local children regardless of gender or faith. We can learn a lot about ourselves and others from being exposed to different points of view.

It seems to be the norm now to send kids to mixed schools, when I was a kid it was considered odd. I'm sure in time we will look back at segregation on faith grounds as equally strange.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ah, no.

Atheism is a specific belief that God does not exist.

To you maybe but many atheists do not identify with your definition of it at all.

Nor do many dictionaries. In fact even the etymology of the word is not really that supportive of your definition. The word is A (without) theism (a theism). Not Adeism. So if we were to be anal and pedantic enough, you could in fact be an atheist who believes ithere is a god.

Many, if not most, in fact in my own personal experience pretty much all atheists, merely identify as someone who sees no reason to think there is a god. So they do not at this time think there is a god.

They do not claim there is NOT one for the same reasons you can not claim there is no tooth fairy. Proving a negative is problematic.

In general though it is often a good idea when someone identifies as a label, to ask them what THEY believe it to mean, not what you think the label tells you they believe. For example a recent survey showed that many people who identify as Catholic do not at all believe many of the tenets the church would be teaching. Like virgin births and zombies espousing the eating of his body. In fact many Catholics said they do not even believe in a god. Which I would have at one time imagined was a fairly low bar for using the label.

I myself, except when prose demands, never identify as "atheist" at all. It's a word other people call me, which is fine by me. I have no real use for it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To you maybe but many atheists do not identify with your definition of it at all.

Nor do many dictionaries. In fact even the etymology of the word is not really that supportive of your definition. The word is A (without) theism (a theism). Not Adeism. So if we were to be anal and pedantic enough, you could in fact be an atheist who believes ithere is a god.

Many, if not most, in fact in my own personal experience pretty much all atheists, merely identify as someone who sees no reason to think there is a god. So they do not at this time think there is a god.

They do not claim there is NOT one for the same reasons you can not claim there is no tooth fairy. Proving a negative is problematic.

In general though it is often a good idea when someone identifies as a label, to ask them what THEY believe it to mean, not what you think the label tells you they believe. For example a recent survey showed that many people who identify as Catholic do not at all believe many of the tenets the church would be teaching. Like virgin births and zombies espousing the eating of his body. In fact many Catholics said they do not even believe in a god. Which I would have at one time imagined was a fairly low bar for using the label.

I myself, except when prose demands, never identify as "atheist" at all. It's a word other people call me, which is fine by me. I have no real use for it.

Ah sorry - misread the act you quoted.

In that case I agree totally with Athiest Ireland. And I don't identify as 100% athiest either.

Danzy wrote: »

Schools like educate together ones are more religious, in ways, more about imparting a belief system than nearly all religious denominated schools.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Teaching about religion is sompletely different to being "religious".

Educate Together's own curriculum (not the modules where they teach about world religions) is undoubtedly religious in nature but people have become so programmed to accept the language and activities they use that it wouldn't appear so at first glance.

We teach morality and spirituality outside of a religious context...

...Pupils explore meditation and stillness.

Equality & Justice
The aim of this strand is to develop in students an understanding and awareness of issues relating to human rights, equality, diversity, social justice and social inclusiveness and to empower them to make a difference. Work is done on rights and responsibilities. Discrimination is addressed. Classes do work on issues such as homelessness, migrant rights, LGBT rights

https://www.educatetogether.ie/about/ethical-education/primary/

This blend of deluded one-world utopianism and new-age spirituality has effectively become the established religion in Ireland, so much so that I would argue that Educate Together schools are the least secular of all.

sabat wrote: »

Educate Together's own curriculum (not the modules where they teach about world religions) is undoubtedly religious in nature but people have become so programmed to accept the language and activities they use that it wouldn't appear so at first glance.

https://www.educatetogether.ie/about/ethical-education/primary/

This blend of deluded one-world utopianism and new-age spirituality has effectively become the established religion in Ireland, so much so that I would argue that Educate Together schools are the least secular of all.

Are you saying spirtiuality and religiousness are the same thing....?

Also, medititaion and stillness are most definitley not religious practicies. Many people of no religious persuasion practice them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Are you saying spirtiuality and religiousness are the same thing....?

Also, medititaion and stillness are most definitley not religious practicies. Many people of no religious persuasion practice them.

So spirituality is a science? They are openly instructing children in a supernatural phenomenon. There are also very serious issues around doing guided meditation with young children.

Manach

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't know of a single atheist who wants their child educated that there is no God. Most of us just want to see a mixed school system where children are educated with other local children regardless of gender or faith. We can learn a lot about ourselves and others from being exposed to different points of view.

It seems to be the norm now to send kids to mixed schools, when I was a kid it was considered odd. I'm sure in time we will look back at segregation on faith grounds as equally strange.

That you deliberty seek to mispresent your own cause is te only thing that seems strange. That the atheists willfully and progressively seek the elimation of faith in the public square is clear from other countries ie the lacisation laws of France. The endgoal is the banishment of old-school religion and the replacement with the secular type that brooks no rivials.

mikhail

Manach wrote: »

That you deliberty seek to mispresent your own cause is te only thing that seems strange. That the atheists willfully and progressively seek the elimation of faith in the public square is clear from other countries ie the lacisation laws of France. The endgoal is the banishment of old-school religion and the replacement with the secular type that brooks no rivials.

That's not what secular means. Secular means leaving everyone the hell alone. I think it's telling when people oppose secularisation. They fear the loss of an unjustly privileged position.

sabat wrote: »

So spirituality is a science? They are openly instructing children in a supernatural phenomenon. There are also very serious issues around doing guided meditation with young children.

Don't believe I ever mentioned science?

There's a typo in the second sentence. Not sure what it means?

Can you elaborate on the thrid one - what serious issues?

Mrs OBumble

mikhail wrote: »

That's not what secular means. Secular means leaving everyone the hell alone. I think it's telling when people oppose secularisation. They fear the loss of an unjustly privileged position.

No it doesn't.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/secular

adjective
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:

I think its more telling that people are redefining terms like secular and atheist to suit themselves. Not sure if its due to ignorance or just obfuscation of their real agenda.

mikhail

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No it doesn't.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/secular

adjective
of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:

I think its more telling that people are redefining terms like secular and atheist to suit themselves. Not sure if its due to ignorance or just obfuscation of their real agenda.

From your own link:

(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

That is to say, does not deal with religion. As in, we have no position, which is as far from atheism as it is from Catholicism.

Geuze

I must be odd.

I dream of a Jesuit education for my children.

James Joyce was educated by them:
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/you-ought-to-allude-to-me-as-a-jesuit-joyce-once-remarked-1.1144792

As was Emmanuel Macron.

And Simon Coveney, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus#Educational_institutions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alumni_of_Jesuit_educational_institutions

salmocab

Manach wrote: »

That you deliberty seek to mispresent your own cause is te only thing that seems strange. That the atheists willfully and progressively seek the elimation of faith in the public square is clear from other countries ie the lacisation laws of France. The endgoal is the banishment of old-school religion and the replacement with the secular type that brooks no rivials.

He doesn’t have a cause most atheists don’t care what others are doing just like most religious people aren’t too worried what others are at. What your talking about is the zealots who exist on both sides trying to force what they believe on others. What’s happened here is you’ve seen something and extrapolated it out to something it’s not. Atheists I’m sure can be accused of lots of things but surely you can’t believe that they are organised and have beliefs of how things should be in the same way as a religion would be.

sabat wrote: »

They are openly instructing children in a supernatural phenomenon.

To what do you refer here specifically? Not meditation I hope, which is not even remotely supernatural. At all. Even a little bit.

Manach wrote: »

That the atheists willfully and progressively seek the elimation of faith in the public square is clear from other countries

I certainly have yet to meet an atheist who espouses total removal of religion from public. I certainly think our architecture would be the worse for losing all the churches for example. And any study of Milton or Shakespeare would be bereft if it did not also include study of the King James Bible.

Secularism involves removing the specific claims of religion from our halls of science, education, and politics. And I would certainly put my name to that, as would most atheists I think. But total removal of it from public entirely? Nobody I have met anyway.

And remember even theists can be secular. One of my secular "heroes" for example would be Evolutionary Biologist Kenneth Miller for his part in the Dover Trials and his subsequent speaking out against creationism. He is however entirely and devoutly catholic.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I think its more telling that people are redefining terms like secular and atheist to suit themselves.

Then stop. People like me are telling you what the words actually mean, where they come from, and what people identifying themselves by those labels actually mean when they do so and you are ignoring all that. To be honest though, I am not sure if its due to ignorance or just obfuscation of your real agenda.

You're the only one here pretending to tell other people what THEIR position is. To be honest though, I am not sure if its due to ignorance or just obfuscation of your real agenda.

What is telling though is that when you cited a dictionary you cherry picked one part of it, and left out the rest. To be honest though, I am not sure if its due to ignorance or just obfuscation of your real agenda.

Geuze wrote: »

I dream of a Jesuit education for my children.

To give it to them, the Jesuit Priests I met were some of the most highly educated people I have met in my life. And I met a few of them as my mum worked for them for some time in Dublin City.

They did not seem all that religious though. A bit like those similarly highly educated Jews who also seem to think belief in god is rather optional.

In fact there is that old joke based on this. Two Rabbis argued all night about the existence of God and end up disproving His existence. The next day one Rabbi is surprised to see the other walking into the Shul for morning services.

"I thought we had agreed there was no God," he said.

"Sure but what has that got to do with anything?" replies the other.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To what do you refer here specifically? Not meditation I hope, which is not even remotely supernatural. At all. Even a little bit.
.

It says it right there- "we teach spirituality." That is a religious statement about a supernatural concept. I didn't say meditation is supernatural but it's completely inappropriate for 5 and 6 year olds to be partaking in it.

sabat wrote: »

It says it right there- "we teach spirituality." That is a religious statement about a supernatural concept. I didn't say meditation is supernatural but it's completely inappropriate for 5 and 6 year olds to be partaking in it.

Spirituality is no more supernatural-based than the worship of a God.

I asked before but you missed the question: what are the "seious issues" you refered to in your previous posts? In what way is meditation inapproiate for 5-6 year olds?