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

A Secular State for a Pluralist People

2

Comments

  • #32
    muppeteer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, they do. They favour secularists.
    Of the available options I'm aware of, state philosophical neutrality, state pluralism/equality and state secularism, then it seems secularism is the least worst option.
    It isn't such a bad thing for a state to pick the least worst option -
    "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. - W.Churchill"


  • #33
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,456 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Correct. In the same way that people who want a hospital that serves both black and white people get it and those who want a white only hospital don't. There is little that can be done about that because the government is not going to make a white only hospital. They will make a hospital that can accept anyone, and the only way to do that is a hospital that, well, accepts anyone. We fell into skin colour but that statement is not a comment on racism, replace black white with male hospital and female hospital or red head hospital and blonde hospital etc. The point is that it is not practical to have hospitals springing up for groupings that are irrelevant to medical care. You will get a hospital for cancer. You won't get a hospital just for short people.
    Actually, governments do support things like women’s hospitals and children’s hospitals, don’t they?

    But the analogy breaks down. A hospital for blacks or a hospital for women is not analogous to a Catholic hospital or a Jewish hospital, because these are not hospitals for Catholics or for Jews; they are hospitals established and organized by people whose motivation for doing so is religious.

    Suppose a bunch of people get together and organise a hospital out of an ethical conviction that caring for and healing the sick is a virtuous act. And now suppose they apply for state funding. Is it a problem that their motivation is an ethical, altruistic one? No, I don’t think it is. Does it make any difference whether their ethical motivation is religious or non-religious in nature? I think not.

    Right. Now suppose we have a largish city which can support several hospitals. And we receive funding applications from several hospitals - a Jewish, a Catholic and an Ethical Humanist hospital. We’re happy to fund three hospitals. In most respects, their applications for funding seem to be equally meritorious. They’ll all treat anyone who turns up, without distinction of creed. So far, so good.

    But now suppose the Catholic Hospital comes along and says “we won’t perform vasectomies or tubal ligations”, whereas the Jewish and Ethical Humanist hospitals have no such restriction.

    This might be a reason to withhold funding from the Catholic hospital. Or it might not - perhaps we need three general hospitals, but it will be enough if two of them offer vasectomies, etc. Or perhaps we can offer vasectomies, etc, through second-tier clinics. But let’s say, for the purposes of our illustration, that the inability to provide these services is legitimately a deal-breaker and the Catholic hospital is denied funding. The important point here is that the fact that the Catholic hospital’s ethical concerns are religiously-founded is irrelevant. If it had been the Ethical Humanist hospital were had taken that stance, they would have been denied funding.

    Now, to complicate the matter further, suppose a fourth hospital, run by Jehovah’s Witnesses, also applies for funding (and we are willing to fund a fourth hospital). Again, they’ll treat anyone who walks in the door, but their particular schtick is that they won’t perform blood transfusions, and all their surgery will involve bloodless surgery techniques.

    We disregard the fact that the JW hospital’s concerns are religious in nature; we just look at the impact their concerns would have on the provision of medical services.

    At first glance, we might say that this is altogether too big a restriction, and we won’t fund this hospital. But suppose the city has a significant population of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who won’t accept medical treatment which involves blood transfusions. If they are to have surgery at all, it must be bloodless surgery, and this is best provided in a facility which has expertise and experience in the techniques concerned. If they don’t have surgery, and competent surgery, forseeably many of them will die.

    How do we take, on a secular basis, the various decisions that we face? We can consider a range of possibilities.

    1. We deny funding to any hospital with an explicitly religious purpose. Thus only the Ethical Humanist hospital gets funded.

    2. We deny funding to any hospital whose religious character impacts upon the delivery of medical services in a way which falls short of an ideal that we have in mind. The Ethical Humanist and Jewish hospitals get funded; the Catholic and JW hospitals get denied.

    3. We fund the Ethical Humanist and Jewish hospitals. We also fund the JW hospital on the grounds that it will meet a need which arises from patient demand. To be honest, we'd rather that the patients didn’t demand this but we note that they do demand it and, as secularists, we disregard the religious character of the demand but not the demand itself. We deny funding to the Catholic hospital on the grounds that their refusal to provide vasectomies, etc, impacts adversely on their services and is not something which can be justified by reference to patient demand or need.

    4. We fund all the hospitals.

    Which of these represents the “best” model of secularism?

    I suggest that the first two of these options represent not so much secularism as bigotry. Secularism requires us to disregard considerations which refer to supernatural realities, an afterlife, etc. Discriminating against them, or actively disfavouring them, is not really consistent with this.

    Option 3 strikes me as the best model of secularism.

    Option 4 could be supported as a secular option, but it would require special facts to defend it - e.g. that the detrimental effect of funding only three hospitals instead of four would be worse than the beneficial effect of having vasectomies, etc, available in every hospital. And you would need to be satisified, with option 4, that even if vasectomies, etc, were not available in the Catholic hospital they were nevertheless available to everyone who wanted them.

    Your thoughts?


  • #34
    muppeteer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    Is there a case for an option 0.?
    That the state doesn't fund hospitals of any religious or humanist group and funds only its own hospitals to it's own ideal, catering as best it can to all who come through the door?


  • #35
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,456 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    muppeteer wrote: »
    Is there a case for an option 0.?
    That the state doesn't fund hospitals of any religious or humanist group and funds only its own hospitals to it's own ideal, catering as best it can to all who come through the door?
    If there is, it’s a case that needs to be made, and scrutinized.

    We all need food. Does that mean the state has to produce all the food in the country?

    We all need shelter. Does the state have to build all the houses?

    We all need sex. Does the state have to . . . ? No, don’t go there.

    I think when it comes to the things that are needed for human flourishing, starting with food and working up to education and healthcare and more besides, a civilized society will ensure that all its members, and particularly its vulnerable and weak members, are protected and catered for.

    The state is one instrument through which society can do this, but not necessarily the only one, or always the optimal one.

    I think the concern of the state is to see that everyone has access to the healthcare, education, etc that they need. The state directly providing this is one way of achieving this, but it seems to me a pragmatic question as to whether it’s the best way in any particular situation.

    And, in pragmatic terms, there is a good deal to be said for a diverse system of doing anything. Diverse systems are less prone to catastrophic failures than uniform systems, for example. Diverse systems allow experimentation, they allow alternatives, they allow comparison, they allow one way of doing things to be empirically evaluated against another. These are all strengths.

    And, separately, I think there’s a challenge to be raised the notion of “its own ideal”, where “it” is the state. Should hospitals be run according to the ideals of the state, or according to the (necessarily) diverse ideals of the people in a diverse society? As a humanist, I’m much more attracted by the idea that the people’s ideals should inform the activities of the state, than the idea that the state’s ideals should inform the services delivered to the people.

    Finally, I’d point out that in a democratic or populist state what you suggest is potentially threatening to whoever happens to be in the (ideological) minority - which, in Ireland, even now, certainly includes secularists. If the state imposed its ideals on all hospitals then, in the past, far from, say, sterlisations being available only in Protestant hospitals, they wouldn’t have been available in any hospitals. Is that a better outcome? Just at the moment, in the current climate, what you propose might favour the group you belong to, but maybe that’s not enough to make it a good idea in principle.


  • #36
    muppeteer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    Peregrinus wrote: »

    And, separately, I think there’s a challenge to be raised the notion of “it’s own ideal”, where “it” is the state. Should hospitals be run according to the ideals of the state, or according to the (necessarily) diverse ideals of the people in a diverse society? As a humanist, I’m much more attracted by the idea that the people’s ideals should inform the activities of the state, than the idea that the state’s ideals should inform the services delivered to the people.

    Finally, I’d point out that in a democratic or populist state what you suggest is potentially threatening to whoever happens to be in the (ideological) minority - which, in Ireland, even now, certainly includes secularists. If the state imposed its ideals on all hospitals then, in the past, far from, say, sterlisations being available only in Protestant hospitals, they wouldn’t have been available in any hospitals. Is that a better outcome? Just at the moment, in the current climate, what you propose might favour the group you belong to, but maybe that’s not enough to make it a good idea in principle.
    Well, like you, I have an idea of a state made up of the diverse ideals of the people. But also a state that protects a minority from the ideals or privilege of a majority if needed.
    Such a state, I would hope, would deliver the services the people want the state to deliver in as diverse a way as possible, but to do so on republican terms.
    This would mean in practice that the first responsibility of the state is to cater to all citizens as equals without consideration to an individuals philosophical leanings. The state would try to cater first to the least common denominator citizen if you will. Once that need has been met then diversity can be added on top of that as resources permit it.

    I would see this applied to the hospital example as an outcome of state hospitals, without particular philosophical leanings, that provide the full range of services(healthcare) to all citizens as resources permit. We can accommodate as much as possible/reasonable individuals within a state funded hospital. No compulsory ham for dinner:)

    In the schools example I would see the outcome as state schools, without particular philosophical leanings, that provide the full range of services(education) to all citizens as resources permit. Again accommodations can be made with making buildings available after hours as this would not harm the baseline services.

    It would be a valid point to make that there should be no problem then with state funded hospitals of a particular religious philosophy being funded as part of the additional diversity I mentioned earlier. This is true, but it would have to be carried out in a way that does not harm the provision of the base hospitals.(which would be difficult to justify given a finite pool of funds)
    And it would also be difficult to avoid the tacit privilege of position that state sponsorship would give to the funded religious philosophy. It would be reasonable to only fund them based on proportion of supporting citizens but then we run into privileging the majority. We can't fund every philosophy to avoid this either(limited funds). We also have the case of the state tacitly supporting philosophies that may be self defeating/harmful if we must apply this equally to all philosophies. For example funding St. Racists hospital of Racism and Hate:)

    We could try our best to walk the tight rope of these issues and see where we end up, but I think there is a case for avoiding the issues somewhat by sticking to the base secular hospitals as much as possible.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,456 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Ok, fair enough, but play all that out in the hypothetical scenario that I spelt out.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    Such a state, I would hope, would deliver the services the people want the state to deliver in as diverse a way as possible, but to do so on republican terms.
    This would mean in practice that the first responsibility of the state is to cater to all citizens as equals without consideration to an individuals philosophical leanings. The state would try to cater first to the least common denominator citizen if you will. Once that need has been met then diversity can be added on top of that as resources permit it.

    I would see this applied to the hospital example as an outcome of state hospitals, without particular philosophical leanings, that provide the full range of services(healthcare) to all citizens as resources permit. We can accommodate as much as possible/reasonable individuals within a state funded hospital. No compulsory ham for dinner
    But in my scenario, all four hospitals are committed to meeting the needs of anyone who seeks treatment. None of them cater only to particular groups of citizen. None of them pay any attention at all to the philosophical leanings of the individual patient, beyond not imposing treatment on the patient to which the patient objects (which - I hope - would also be the position of a state-run hospital). Thus it’s not necessary to have only state-established hospitals to achieve this. All you need is a rule that the state won’t fund hospitals unless they cater to all.

    (And, in fact, you don’t even need that. As already noted, the state does fund (or indeed operate), e.g. women’s hospitals, children’s hospitals. In order for the hospital service to cater to the needs of every citizen, it doesn’t have to be the case that every hospital will cater to every citizen. It’s enough that every citizen can access a hospital that will cater to his need.)

    A separate issue in my scenario is that one of the hospitals will cater to anybody, but not if they want a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. And another hospital will cater to anybody, but not if they want a blood transfusion.

    But you don’t have to have only state-run hospitals to get around that . There are a couple of approaches:

    First, as long as everybody can have access to a hospital that offers vasectomies, is it a problem that they may also have access to a hospital which doesn’t? There’s no necessary inefficiency here; it’s pretty routine for a wide range of medical procedures to be offered in some hospitals and not in others, and for a variety of reasons. Are you going to have a rule that vasectomies must be offered in every hospital when you have no rule that sterilisations must be? (Current medical practice is that tubal ligation is mostly offered in maternity/gynaecological hospitals; are you going to change that, and why?) Are you going to have a rule that vasectomies must be offered in every hospital when you have no rule that cancer treatment must be? Is there a reason why we need to single out vasectomies for this “universal provision” requirement?

    But let’s suppose we do have sound medical/public health reasons for wanting all hospitals to provide vasectomies. This still doesn’t mean that all the hospitals must be state-run, does it? All it means is that a hospital can’t get funding unless it provides vasectomies, and three of the four voluntary hospitals in my hypothetical have no problem with that. So why deny those three funding?

    But the third issue is the matter of bloodless surgery. If you only have state hospitals, is every state hospital going to provide bloodless surgery to everyone who wants it? Will it be provided in some hospitals only? In none?

    I think we have to rule out the answer “in none” immediately. The foreseeable result of this happening is that people who could live if they got bloodless surgery will instead die because they won’t accept conventional surgery, and accepting avoidable deaths is not an acceptable outcome for any public health policy.

    I think we also have to rule out the “in all” answer. It’s a highly specialised technique, and if experience and expertise is to be built up so that the service can be delivered competently, it needs to be concentrated. If we can’t deliver oncological services in every hospital - and we can’t - how can we possibly think of delivering bloodless surgery in every hospital?

    So the only acceptable answer is “in some”. But if we accept that some hospitals will provide this service and others will not, what remains of the rationale for arguing that all hospitals must be state-run? If state-run hospitals can be diverse in their practices, why should the state refuse to fund voluntary hospitals which might be diverse in their practices?
    muppeteer wrote: »
    It would be a valid point to make that there should be no problem then with state funded hospitals of a particular religious philosophy being funded as part of the additional diversity I mentioned earlier. This is true, but it would have to be carried out in a way that does not harm the provision of the base hospitals.(which would be difficult to justify given a finite pool of funds)
    Fair enough. That addresses some of the points I have made. But it’s a significant change from your original position, which was that the state would only fund hospitals which it ran itself. And it still leaves two questions.

    First, if the state doesn’t have to run the “additional” hospitals, why does it have to run the “base” hospitals? What principle is infringed if, instead of running a full-service base hospital itself, the state funds a voluntary full-service base hospital? (E.g. the Jewish or Secular Humanist hospitals, in my hypothesis.)

    Secondly, once you concede that the state is going to fund any voluntary hospitals, then you still have to think about what secularity requires in relation to the funding of voluntary hospitals. Re-run the hypothetical that I outlined earlier, but imagine that all four voluntary hospitals are being funded in addition to a large, general state-run hospital which provides vasectomies but not bloodless surgery. The questions that I raise about how to make funding decisions in relation to the voluntary hospitals are still relevant, and if we’re goint to argue for secularity then we have to be able to answer those questions.


  • #38
    muppeteer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Ok, fair enough, but play all that out in the hypothetical scenario that I spelt out.


    But in my scenario, all four hospitals are committed to meeting the needs of anyone who seeks treatment. None of them cater only to particular groups of citizen. None of them pay any attention at all to the philosophical leanings of the individual patient, beyond not imposing treatment on the patient to which the patient objects (which - I hope - would also be the position of a state-run hospital). Thus it’s not necessary to have only state-established hospitals to achieve this. All you need is a rule that the state won’t fund hospitals unless they cater to all.
    If all the hospitals pay no attention to the particular philosophical leanings then they will be offering all the state sanctioned treatments to all. If this is the case then a voluntary hospital is functionally no different to a state one.
    The only problem then becomes is the state seen to be promoting one philosophy over another. To prevent this nearly all obvious signs of that particular philosophy would have to be missing. So the voluntary hospital really becomes indistinguishable from a state one.
    (And, in fact, you don’t even need that. As already noted, the state does fund (or indeed operate), e.g. women’s hospitals, children’s hospitals. In order for the hospital service to cater to the needs of every citizen, it doesn’t have to be the case that every hospital will cater to every citizen. It’s enough that every citizen can access a hospital that will cater to his need.)
    If for operational reasons hospitals specialise or only offer limited treatments due to size etc. then that is fine, there is no need to have a uniform, does everything, hospital. If the reasons to only offer limited treatments are based on philosophical reasons then I would see that as idealism limiting what could be a better/more universal hospital.
    I wouldn't be a fan of womens or mens only hospitals if they were only based on gender segregation. If it was for operational reasons I would have no objection.
    A separate issue in my scenario is that one of the hospitals will cater to anybody, but not if they want a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. And another hospital will cater to anybody, but not if they want a blood transfusion.

    But you don’t have to have only state-run hospitals to get around that . There are a couple of approaches:

    First, as long as everybody can have access to a hospital that offers vasectomies, is it a problem that they may also have access to a hospital which doesn’t? There’s no necessary inefficiency here; it’s pretty routine for a wide range of medical procedures to be offered in some hospitals and not in others, and for a variety of reasons. Are you going to have a rule that vasectomies must be offered in every hospital when you have no rule that sterilisations must be? (Current medical practice is that tubal ligation is mostly offered in maternity/gynaecological hospitals; are you going to change that, and why?) Are you going to have a rule that vasectomies must be offered in every hospital when you have no rule that cancer treatment must be? Is there a reason why we need to single out vasectomies for this “universal provision” requirement?
    Operational efficiencies rule supreme:) If it could be shown that the Catholic or JW hospitals offering their limited services did not severely impact access to the baseline services(only a large city would really work) then they would be acceptable. If it could be shown, should it be operationally efficient to do so, that adding back the limited services prohibited by the CC/JW hospitals would produce greater utility, then it should be done. I would not see philosophical positions as overruling the principle of gaining the greatest utility for state money.
    Of course even if the above CC or JW hospital was acceptable there is still the issue of privileging particular philosophies over others. So an almost invisible voluntary status of the hospital must be maintained if it is to use state funds.
    But let’s suppose we do have sound medical/public health reasons for wanting all hospitals to provide vasectomies. This still doesn’t mean that all the hospitals must be state-run, does it? All it means is that a hospital can’t get funding unless it provides vasectomies, and three of the four voluntary hospitals in my hypothetical have no problem with that. So why deny those three funding?
    They wouldn't be denied provided the above criteria were met.
    But the third issue is the matter of bloodless surgery. If you only have state hospitals, is every state hospital going to provide bloodless surgery to everyone who wants it? Will it be provided in some hospitals only? In none?

    I think we have to rule out the answer “in none” immediately. The foreseeable result of this happening is that people who could live if they got bloodless surgery will instead die because they won’t accept conventional surgery, and accepting avoidable deaths is not an acceptable outcome for any public health policy.

    I think we also have to rule out the “in all” answer. It’s a highly specialised technique, and if experience and expertise is to be built up so that the service can be delivered competently, it needs to be concentrated. If we can’t deliver oncological services in every hospital - and we can’t - how can we possibly think of delivering bloodless surgery in every hospital?

    So the only acceptable answer is “in some”. But if we accept that some hospitals will provide this service and others will not, what remains of the rationale for arguing that all hospitals must be state-run? If state-run hospitals can be diverse in their practices, why should the state refuse to fund voluntary hospitals which might be diverse in their practices?
    The bloodless surgery can be provided based on need, in specialised hospitals if needed, within state hospitals or a voluntary hospital which meets the above criteria.
    Fair enough. That addresses some of the points I have made. But it’s a significant change from your original position, which was that the state would only fund hospitals which it ran itself. And it still leaves two questions.

    First, if the state doesn’t have to run the “additional” hospitals, why does it have to run the “base” hospitals? What principle is infringed if, instead of running a full-service base hospital itself, the state funds a voluntary full-service base hospital? (E.g. the Jewish or Secular Humanist hospitals, in my hypothesis.)

    Secondly, once you concede that the state is going to fund any voluntary hospitals, then you still have to think about what secularity requires in relation to the funding of voluntary hospitals. Re-run the hypothetical that I outlined earlier, but imagine that all four voluntary hospitals are being funded in addition to a large, general state-run hospital which provides vasectomies but not bloodless surgery. The questions that I raise about how to make funding decisions in relation to the voluntary hospitals are still relevant, and if we’re goint to argue for secularity then we have to be able to answer those questions.
    It's not a huge change of position as such, it is more of a neutering of the voluntary hospitals to almost the point of irrelevancy, or to the point of making them indistinguishable from state hospitals. If services are specialised in one area(bloodless surgery) or curtailed in another(vasectomies or oncology) then this should be done on operational grounds not philosophical ones. If philosophical groups want to volunteer their time and money to help run a hospital with state funding I have no problem with that, provided at the point of contact for the patient that it is an all inclusive and a non exclusionary place that favours no particular philosophy.


  • #39
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,456 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    muppeteer wrote: »
    If all the hospitals pay no attention to the particular philosophical leanings then they will be offering all the state sanctioned treatments to all. If this is the case then a voluntary hospital is functionally no different to a state one.
    No, no, no. I said the voluntary hospitals pay no attention to the philosophical leanings of the patients. They offer the same treatment to all patients, regardless of the patient’s philosophy. (The patient is, of course, free to decline any treatment offered, and may do so on the basis of his philosophy.)

    But they pay a good deal of attention to their own philosophical leanings. Hence the JW hospital, for instance, offers blood transfusions to no-one, and bloodless surgery to all.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    The only problem then becomes is the state seen to be promoting one philosophy over another. To prevent this nearly all obvious signs of that particular philosophy would have to be missing. So the voluntary hospital really becomes indistinguishable from a state one.
    Whether or not there are alternative voluntary hospitals available, the state-run hospitals are going to be promoting one philosophy over another, because it will face issues on which a philosophical position must be taken. (Do we offer kidney transplants to people who, we suspect, will not stop drinking? Do we offer gender reassignment surgery? To anyone who asks? Or are their criteria that must be met? Do we offer cosmetic surgery? To anyone, or in certain circumstances only? When and on what conditions do we offer palliative care only? When do we discuss a “do not resuscitate” instruction with a patient? What criteria, if any, do we apply to someone seeking IV fertilization? Do we offer genetic testing to someone who refuses to accept genetic counseling? In what circumstances - if any - do we medicate someone without their consent? How do with deal with human remains resulting from miscarriages?)

    My point is, there’s a whole host of important ethical and philosophical issues that arise in medical practice. “It’s legal” is not a complete answer to very many of them and however runs a hospital, state or voluntary agency, is going to have to not only adopt philosophical positions but take significant decisions that affect patients and their families on the basis of those decisions.

    It’s not obvious - to put it no higher - that the state is particularly well-qualified to do this, and there’s no reason to think that the state’s decisions on these matters will be “better” in any objective sense, or more sensitive to patient wishes and desires, than the decisions of other agents.

    One of the advantages of voluntary hospitals is that they are (often) explicit in the philosophical basis on which they approach the practice of medicine, and this enables the patient, if he wishes to, to seek treatment in a hospital in whose philosophical approach he has confidence. Indeed, the very fact that it is the philosophical basis which distinguishes different voluntary hospitals often means that the ethical/philosophical issues and positions are discussed when otherwise they might not be, and this gives patients better information and better understanding.

    It’s a common position among nonbelievers that everyone must accept responsibility for framing his own ethical views and decisions, and that no authority has the right to impose preset ethical positions on society. I completely agree with this. But that sits very oddly with the view that, when it comes to the practice of medicine in hospitals, only the state should run hospitals so that the state-sanctioned ethical position should prevail universally.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    Operational efficiencies rule supreme . . .
    Do I need to spell out the operational inefficiency of closing all the existing voluntary hospitals and replacing them with new state-run hospitals? It involves massive disruption, and I await any argument that the reluctance of, e.g., Catholic hospitals to provide vasectomies imposes a cost that would justify this.

    Just to be clear, I accept the principle of your argument. The state’s health resources must be spent efficiently, and if there is an efficiency involved in operating some hospital on, e.g., Catholic lines (and if that inefficiency is not justified by actual patient demand for a hospital run on those lines) then the state should not fund the hospital. But the inefficiency has to be demonstrated. You can’t just assume an inefficiency as a cover for giving vent to a distaste for Catholic involvement in public medicine. From my point of view, diversity has a value. A philosophically diverse hospital system is, in general, preferable to a uniform one, and if you’re going to impose uniformity you need to demonstrate the need to do so.
    muppeteer wrote: »
    It's not a huge change of position as such, it is more of a neutering of the voluntary hospitals to almost the point of irrelevancy . .
    But “neutering the voluntary hospitals to almost the point of irrelevancy” is not a proper object of public policy, is it? Secularity requires that the state should disregard supernatural claims in its decisions, not that it should make its decisions with a view to marginalizing or excluding people or institutions because they particular views about supernatural claims.


  • #40
    muppeteer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, no, no. I said the voluntary hospitals pay no attention to the philosophical leanings of the patients. They offer the same treatment to all patients, regardless of the patient’s philosophy. (The patient is, of course, free to decline any treatment offered, and may do so on the basis of his philosophy.)

    But they pay a good deal of attention to their own philosophical leanings. Hence the JW hospital, for instance, offers blood transfusions to no-one, and bloodless surgery to all.
    Ah I see. Well then they would not be providing the same treatment to all patients by way of having limited services on offer. It would have to be operationally justified that the services not offered by the voluntary hospital does not impact too severely on all patients who might need to use that hospital.

    Whether or not there are alternative voluntary hospitals available, the state-run hospitals are going to be promoting one philosophy over another, because it will face issues on which a philosophical position must be taken. (Do we offer kidney transplants to people who, we suspect, will not stop drinking? Do we offer gender reassignment surgery? To anyone who asks? Or are their criteria that must be met? Do we offer cosmetic surgery? To anyone, or in certain circumstances only? When and on what conditions do we offer palliative care only? When do we discuss a “do not resuscitate” instruction with a patient? What criteria, if any, do we apply to someone seeking IV fertilization? Do we offer genetic testing to someone who refuses to accept genetic counseling? In what circumstances - if any - do we medicate someone without their consent? How do with deal with human remains resulting from miscarriages?)
    The issues you raise are more to do with medical ethics than religious ethics. They do sometimes overlap but in those cases it would be for the patient themselves to decide what they did and did not want without the state interfering too much. Want a new kidney-medical ethics. Palliative care-medical ethics. DNR- medical again. Best practice in medical ethics is fairly standard as it is anyway without huge interference from government. No reason it would change in a secular system.
    My point is, there’s a whole host of important ethical and philosophical issues that arise in medical practice. “It’s legal” is not a complete answer to very many of them and however runs a hospital, state or voluntary agency, is going to have to not only adopt philosophical positions but take significant decisions that affect patients and their families on the basis of those decisions.
    A hospital having a secular character would be less restrictive than a voluntary as I imagine it at the moment. But I'd be open to examples. A less restrictive service would allow for patients to make their own choices and where they could not the decisions fall to best practice in the profession, which seems outside the individual hospitals power at the moment anyway.
    It’s not obvious - to put it no higher - that the state is particularly well-qualified to do this, and there’s no reason to think that the state’s decisions on these matters will be “better” in any objective sense, or more sensitive to patient wishes and desires, than the decisions of other agents.
    The state is empowering/allowing other agents to make decisions on it's behalf currently when it chooses to fund a hospital. There is nothing to stop the state from yanking the funding of a hospital it does agree with. So the state already does cater to patient wishes through allowing all of the procedures it allows. A secular state funded system can still allow the freedom of patient choice that is currently available.
    Anything above and beyond the allowed state services is private currently and would remain private afterwards.
    One of the advantages of voluntary hospitals is that they are (often) explicit in the philosophical basis on which they approach the practice of medicine, and this enables the patient, if he wishes to, to seek treatment in a hospital in whose philosophical approach he has confidence. Indeed, the very fact that it is the philosophical basis which distinguishes different voluntary hospitals often means that the ethical/philosophical issues and positions are discussed when otherwise they might not be, and this gives patients better information and better understanding.
    Again a catch all hospital can offer all the services it can to all patients on their own terms, including never using blood transfusions, never performing vasectomies and offering access to all the philosophical information the patient wants and access to all the pastoral care they want to make those decisions.
    It’s a common position among nonbelievers that everyone must accept responsibility for framing his own ethical views and decisions, and that no authority has the right to impose preset ethical positions on society. I completely agree with this. But that sits very oddly with the view that, when it comes to the practice of medicine in hospitals, only the state should run hospitals so that the state-sanctioned ethical position should prevail universally.
    The state should run hospitals but the ethical position they are treated with is of the patient.
    The state running the hospitals in a secular way is taking a position that everyone is equal in the states hospitals. The secular way is removing religious/philosophical positions from the states current method of privileging a majority while disadvantaging the minorities.
    Do I need to spell out the operational inefficiency of closing all the existing voluntary hospitals and replacing them with new state-run hospitals? It involves massive disruption, and I await any argument that the reluctance of, e.g., Catholic hospitals to provide vasectomies imposes a cost that would justify this.
    No you don't. I'm mostly setting out an ideal without fully setting out how to get there from our current system. We'll see how well the schools handover goes first before we tackle the HSE:)
    It might be a little draconian to suggest just going cold turkey on state funding until secular reforms were enacted.:P
    Just to be clear, I accept the principle of your argument. The state’s health resources must be spent efficiently, and if there is an efficiency involved in operating some hospital on, e.g., Catholic lines (and if that inefficiency is not justified by actual patient demand for a hospital run on those lines) then the state should not fund the hospital. But the inefficiency has to be demonstrated. You can’t just assume an inefficiency as a cover for giving vent to a distaste for Catholic involvement in public medicine. From my point of view, diversity has a value. A philosophically diverse hospital system is, in general, preferable to a uniform one, and if you’re going to impose uniformity you need to demonstrate the need to do so.
    There are cases where the philosophically "diverse" system we have today disadvantages large minorities. Not as seriously we have the implied sanction and support given to religions by receiving state money to promote their own philosophy. State money should not promote one philosophy over another. (Please note secularism may be counted as a philosophy by the state but it has to adopt at least one as it cannot work in a vacuum).

    I like diversity in a system too but our current diversity offers little and comes at the expense of services to others.
    But “neutering the voluntary hospitals to almost the point of irrelevancy” is not a proper object of public policy, is it? Secularity requires that the state should disregard supernatural claims in its decisions, not that it should make its decisions with a view to marginalizing or excluding people or institutions because they particular views about supernatural claims.
    The state cannot disregard supernatural claims if it is funding bodies that promote such claims and use them to justify altering publicly funded health policy. To disregard the supernatural claims it must divest itself of state funded voluntary hospitals which alter their policies on such claims and promote religious claims in its walls.


  • #41
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, they do. They favour secularists.

    Secularists want schools that favour no-one so by "favouring" secularists, they favour no-one.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    As a liberal and a democrat, I have problems with this. I get to choose my RNP, and to change it if I wish; you likewise. The idea that the state would choose an RNP for both of us offends me.

    Tough luck. Nobody sheds a tear for the white supremacist who has his RNP trampled by a government that wont let him have whites only schools or whites only hospitals etc. I fail to see why anyone should de facto be able to get a public service just for themselves.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    As a realist, you should also have problems with this. At the moment, to a large extent, as far as school provision in Ireland is concerned the state does choose an RNP for most people, and it doesn’t happen to be the one you favour. That should show you the dangers of the system you advocate.

    I advocate a system that gives people services that favour no RNP, so I clearly do not agree with the current system.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Finally, you should reflect that there is some inconsistency in objecting to the state favouring an RNP that is not the one you favour, and at the same time calling for the state to favour in an even more extreme way the RNP that you do favour. If the first is unjustified, how can the second be justified?

    Because the second is the only system that favours no RNP. If you have someone who want, say, a football match to be played fair, and so you play it fair, you are not just favouring the person who wanted it fair, you are favouring everyone by favouring no-one.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Are you saying, then, that you do want to see Ireland’s Jewish schools closed?

    Not exactly. They should be amalgamated into a country wide, government run, system of non discriminatory schools.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It can survive with equal treatment. It can’t survive if it is treated unequally, by having funding withdrawn when other schools get funding, which is what you are advocating.

    I clearly am not, don't insult me. I am advocating that all schools teach about all cultures and religions in appropriate class times. No school gets to monopolise time with propoganda of one culture or religion over any other. Jewish schools should become national schools, teach about all religions and cultures with equal time for judiasm as for any other religion/culture.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think we need to distinguish between the state funding secular schools, and the state funding only secular schools. It’s nonsense to suggest that that latter is “clearly the only way to be fair to everyone”. On the contrary, it clearly advantages those who want secular schools over those who want schools which express any other RNP.

    Schools shouldn't express a RNP, thats not what they are for. No school, public or private should be allowed to. We no longer live in a world where segregation is acceptable on an adult level so why the hell should we encourage it in our kids? All it does is retard their social and cultural advancement.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But maybe you find this laughable because it’s something you’ve constructed for the purpose of laughing at it. Look at the assumptions you make here:

    - You’re talking about “someone wanting their kid taught a specific religion in school” and, therefore, not about people who favour a religious school for other, less simplistic reasons.

    Such as? If someone wants a religious school because of some reason besides religion, then the religion is irrelevant to their wanting it. Find out what they want, and how to get it and then it wont matter to them if the schools are secular.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    - You’re talking about people who believe that their child’s eternal soul and chance at heaven would be in danger without a specific religious belief and not, therefore, people whose religious views are less exclusive and childish than this

    Its childish for a religious person to want to ensure that that their child gets into heaven?
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    In other words, you’re reducing somebody’s preference for a religious school to a caricature of your own devising, and then laughing at your caricature.

    You need to do much better than that, Peregrinus. You cant just say that there are other reasons for wanting a religious schools besides the religion (but still somehow require the religion :confused:) but never mention a single reason why. A lot of people do think in the way I've described. A lot of people think its only with religious education that children with get a sense of morality (which is retarded). Any other reason not based on the religion of the school is, well, not based on the religion of the school and so should be achievable without the religion in place.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, that’s not pluralist. Pretty much the definition of pluralism is that it accommodates different ways of doing things. If all schools ar required to be secular, then secularism is favoured and other RNPs are excluded. That’s the opposite of pluralism.

    Not if every school accommodates different ways of doing things (ie teaching about different cultures and religions). You need to balance pluralism with bias and special treatment. Like I pointed out in this post to Duggys Housemate, pre 50s America accommodated both blacks and whites, with separate drinking fountains and places on teh bus etc. Where they really pluralist?


  • #43
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Not if every school accommodates different ways of doing things (ie teaching about different cultures and religions). You need to balance pluralism with bias and special treatment. Like I pointed out in this post to Duggys Housemate, pre 50s America accommodated both blacks and whites, with separate drinking fountains and places on teh bus etc. Where they really pluralist?

    No, but then as I pointed out to you, enforced separatism is not the same as voluntary association.

    There are any number of Godwinish straw men arguments in this thread..
    Nobody sheds a tear for the white supremacist who has his RNP trampled by a government that wont let him have whites only schools or whites only hospitals

    Back to race.

    Sure we wouldn't allow whites only schools, but we would allow Jewish only schools, in fact we do. The difference is that Jewish people want this separation, it is not forced upon them, and therefore totally different from State laws forcing the issue.

    The only actual white supremacists I mentioned in this thread - the KKK - would integrate schooling, as would all nationalist groups in Europe.


  • #44
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    No, but then as I pointed out to you, enforced separatism is not the same as voluntary association.

    There's not much a difference when its being proposed for schools. Do you think that kids from religious schools generally grow up well informed and tolerant of other cultures and religions because of the single specific religiosity of their school (if they are tolerant and informed at all)?
    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Back to race.

    Sure we wouldn't allow whites only schools, but we would allow Jewish only schools, in fact we do. The difference is that Jewish people want this separation, it is not forced upon them, and therefore totally different from State laws forcing the issue.

    I dont think that white only schools were forced upon white people back in the day, so not really that different at all.
    There is one difference between the religiously divided services now and the race divided services in the past. In the past, the whites wanted the division because they thought they should mix with the blacks because they thought they were superior to the blacks, not vice-versa. Nowadays, each religion thinks it shouldn't mingle with any other, because they all see themselves as superior. I fail to see how thats an improvement.
    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    The only actual white supremacists I mentioned in this thread - the KKK - would integrate schooling, as would all nationalist groups in Europe.

    Thats because white supremacists want a race divide, not a religious divide. Do you think that white supremacists who want white only schools and black only schools are pluralist?


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    We no longer live in a world where segregation is acceptable on an adult level so why the hell should we encourage it in our kids? All it does is retard their social and cultural advancement.

    What sort of school do/did your kids go to?


  • #46
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What sort of school do/did your kids go to?

    Don't have kids.


  • #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Don't have kids.

    TBH, I was expecting that answer.

    My son went to an Educate Together school. He's from an atheist family. Many, though not a majority, of his primary classmates were also from atheist families. Several were Catholics, and a few belonged to minority Christian religions.

    There are no ET post-primary schools, and he attends a school with a stated Christian faith position. A small minority of his school friends are atheists, but most aren't. Outside of school, most of his circle of mates are Catholics. I've seen them, heard them, and talked to them, and no-one could describe their social or cultural advancement as retarded or impaired in any way. They are an open-minded bunch of kids, and they are tolerant of and interested in other faith systems - and that includes the two atheists and two Protestants who attended the Catholic primary school at the end of our street. The RE my son encountered in his ET school seems to have been virtually indistinguishable from the RE his mates got in their Catholic schools, probably because the Government has specified what has to be in the RE curriculum in schools.

    Ireland has learned a lot in the last 30 years, especially urban Ireland, and a lot of the dragons one might like to slay already lie dead. But then living in Ireland's heartland of liberalism and tolerance might have coloured my perception a wee bit. ;)


  • #48
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Actually, governments do support things like women’s hospitals and children’s hospitals, don’t they?

    They separate out resources based on speciality of care, not on the personal preference the patient. We don't have children's hospitals to appease the preference of children, we have them because children's care is often quite different to adult care.

    This is the central point. State resources cannot be allocated based on the individual preference of the person who turns up to use them. That would be impractical since there are 4.4 million personal preferences in Ireland.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But the analogy breaks down. A hospital for blacks or a hospital for women is not analogous to a Catholic hospital or a Jewish hospital, because these are not hospitals for Catholics or for Jews; they are hospitals established and organized by people whose motivation for doing so is religious.

    The motivation for setting up the school is not the issue. The religious policy of the school is.

    There is absolutely nothing saying that a religious person cannot set up a secular school due to their religious motivation. I went to an Educate Together school and half the teachers were religious.

    A secular school does not mean all staff members must be atheist. It means the school's policy on religion (not the views of the individual staff members) must be secular.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Right. Now suppose we have a largish city which can support several hospitals. And we receive funding applications from several hospitals - a Jewish, a Catholic and an Ethical Humanist hospital.
    So far in your example we don't have a Jewish hospital, a Catholic hospital nor a Ethical Humanist hospital. If though in your example we have silently shifted from a Jewish person setting up a hospital (stating nothing about what the hospital's policy on religion will be) to a hospital with a Jewish religious policy then you have changed the example.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    This might be a reason to withhold funding from the Catholic hospital. Or it might not - perhaps we need three general hospitals, but it will be enough if two of them offer vasectomies, etc.

    Enough for what? If the hospital receives public funds then an individual who turns up at the door of the hospital should expect care in line with the general public policy on health. It is not good enough to say you can go to another hospital.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The important point here is that the fact that the Catholic hospital’s ethical concerns are religiously-founded is irrelevant. If it had been the Ethical Humanist hospital were had taken that stance, they would have been denied funding.

    Correct. That is in fact the point. In a secular society we do not hold religious view points with any greater significant than any other philosophical view point. Which is why it is not a question of just supporting the 3 biggest religions. You would have to support every single personal view point in Ireland, all 4.4 million of them.

    Or to put it another way, there is no more justification for funding a Catholic school than a million kids want to go to than funding the Star Wars Jedi school that 3 kids want to go to.

    The state cannot say that Catholicism is valid, a real religion, where as Jedi is just made up nonsense. It cannot say vice versa. That the state having a position on which religion or religions is valid and which aren't, which goes against the principle of secularism and freedom of religion.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Now, to complicate the matter further, suppose a fourth hospital, run by Jehovah’s Witnesses, also applies for funding (and we are willing to fund a fourth hospital). Again, they’ll treat anyone who walks in the door, but their particular schtick is that they won’t perform blood transfusions, and all their surgery will involve bloodless surgery techniques.

    Then they won't treat everyone who walks in the door.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    At first glance, we might say that this is altogether too big a restriction, and we won’t fund this hospital. But suppose the city has a significant population of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who won’t accept medical treatment which involves blood transfusions. If they are to have surgery at all, it must be bloodless surgery, and this is best provided in a facility which has expertise and experience in the techniques concerned. If they don’t have surgery, and competent surgery, forseeably many of them will die.

    How do we take, on a secular basis, the various decisions that we face?

    We provide bloodless transfusions in the same hospitals that also provide blood transfusions. The hospital makes no decision on who it will or will not treat based on religious grounds.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    1. We deny funding to any hospital with an explicitly religious purpose. Thus only the Ethical Humanist hospital gets funded.

    2. We deny funding to any hospital whose religious character impacts upon the delivery of medical services in a way which falls short of an ideal that we have in mind. The Ethical Humanist and Jewish hospitals get funded; the Catholic and JW hospitals get denied.

    3. We fund the Ethical Humanist and Jewish hospitals. We also fund the JW hospital on the grounds that it will meet a need which arises from patient demand. To be honest, we'd rather that the patients didn’t demand this but we note that they do demand it and, as secularists, we disregard the religious character of the demand but not the demand itself. We deny funding to the Catholic hospital on the grounds that their refusal to provide vasectomies, etc, impacts adversely on their services and is not something which can be justified by reference to patient demand or need.

    4. We fund all the hospitals.

    Which of these represents the “best” model of secularism?

    None of them. In a secular system an ethical humanist hospital would no more get funding than a Catholic one.

    The answer is 5. We fund secular hospitals, hospitals that have no religious policy either way. They aren't humanist hospitals, they aren't Catholic hospitals, they aren't Jewish hospitals.

    Again there is nothing about secularism that says all the staff members must be atheist. You are confusing the individual motivations of the staff (which the government doesn't care about) with the public policy of the hospital (which the government very much cares about).

    At this point is always worth pointing out that secularism is actually a Christian concept. Christians have pushed and supported secularism for hundreds of years.


  • #49
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, no, no. I said the voluntary hospitals pay no attention to the philosophical leanings of the patients. They offer the same treatment to all patients, regardless of the patient’s philosophy. (The patient is, of course, free to decline any treatment offered, and may do so on the basis of his philosophy.)

    But they pay a good deal of attention to their own philosophical leanings. Hence the JW hospital, for instance, offers blood transfusions to no-one, and bloodless surgery to all.

    If we accept such a system how do you justify not funding a hospital (with a building, with staff, which cleaners, with car park etc etc) that only sprinkles fairy dust on patients when they walk in the door and refuses all other treatments on religious grounds?

    Extreme example but genuinely question.


  • #50
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Deleted User wrote: »
    TBH, I was expecting that answer.

    I dont have to have kids to know how people are likely to turn out if you segregate their education. Do you think the mass of adult morons we have now, who blindly self label as catholic on the census, or decry secular public services as not irish (because Ireland is a "catholic country" :rolleyes:) because they had open educations that informed equally of various cultures and religions and allowed them to make up their minds?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    My son went to an Educate Together school. He's from an atheist family. Many, though not a majority, of his primary classmates were also from atheist families. Several were Catholics, and a few belonged to minority Christian religions.

    There are no ET post-primary schools, and he attends a school with a stated Christian faith position. A small minority of his school friends are atheists, but most aren't. Outside of school, most of his circle of mates are Catholics. I've seen them, heard them, and talked to them, and no-one could describe their social or cultural advancement as retarded or impaired in any way. They are an open-minded bunch of kids, and they are tolerant of and interested in other faith systems - and that includes the two atheists and two Protestants who attended the Catholic primary school at the end of our street.

    And is that because of or despite the specialist religious education they got in the christian schools? I've seen the type of stuff that goes for religious education in schools these days. Retard is the only thing it does, unless the kid doesn't take any of it on board. Its questionable if even teachers of these schools are taught to be open-minded and tolerant of other faiths.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The RE my son encountered in his ET school seems to have been virtually indistinguishable from the RE his mates got in their Catholic schools, probably because the Government has specified what has to be in the RE curriculum in schools.

    You are saying there is little to no difference in course content between an educate together school and a Christian controlled school in terms of religion? Don't ET schools leave all the indoctrination and specific christian ceremonies (communion) out of the school day? Whats the point if they are same? Why did you bother choosing an ET school if that is the case?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ireland has learned a lot in the last 30 years, especially urban Ireland, and a lot of the dragons one might like to slay already lie dead. But then living in Ireland's heartland of liberalism and tolerance might have coloured my perception a wee bit. ;)

    After seeing the abuse that was thrown at the people who who appeared on the late late show last year calling for secular schools it's clear that Ireland's heartland is about as tolerant to state secularism as Saudi Arabia.


  • #51
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The RE my son encountered in his ET school seems to have been virtually indistinguishable from the RE his mates got in their Catholic schools, probably because the Government has specified what has to be in the RE curriculum in schools.
    No, I think you'll find the state primary school curriculum has zero content when it comes to RE.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The RE my son encountered in his ET school seems to have been virtually indistinguishable from the RE his mates got in their Catholic schools, probably because the Government has specified what has to be in the RE curriculum in schools.

    I guess it depends on the school and how bothered the school is about being a "Catholic" school, but that assessment certainly doesn't hold for all Catholic schools. Friends of mine in Limerick have had no end of trouble trying to get the school to stop teaching their daughter Christian theology as fact.


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I dont have to have kids to know how people are likely to turn out if you segregate their education.

    If you say so, but I'd need a bit more evidence, because in the absence of the experience of parenting you do give the distinct impression of someone who is just talking in the abstract. I've already given you an example of a group of people I know, all aged around 14-16, of mixed religions and no religion, who hang out together and who are open-minded, tolerant of and interested in other faiths and belief systems - all of whom are in secondary schools that are either Catholic or Protestant. If these schools are such a bad thing, what on Earth has happened to these youngsters? Shouldn't someone warn the Archbishop of Dublin? Or the other Archbishop of Dublin?

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Do you think the mass of adult morons we have now, who blindly self label as catholic on the census, or decry secular public services as not irish (because Ireland is a "catholic country" :rolleyes:) because they had open educations that informed equally of various cultures and religions and allowed them to make up their minds?

    I know loads of Catholics, and I quite like many of them. Very few of them strike me as being "adult morons". Do you always refer to people who don't see things your way as being "morons"? That's bad manners; one might go so far as to say it's a tad intolerant, closed-minded, and not at all in alignment with the concept of pluralism.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I've seen the type of stuff that goes for religious education in schools these days.

    Where? Boards threads don't count. ;)


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are saying there is little to no difference in course content between an educate together school and a Christian controlled school in terms of religion?

    I am? I think you need to read what I posted again.

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    After seeing the abuse that was thrown at the people who who appeared on the late late show last year calling for secular schools it's clear that Ireland's heartland is about as tolerant to state secularism as Saudi Arabia.

    Try being an atheist in Saudi Arabia. How long before you'd be longing for home, eh?

    I'm an atheist, and despite living in Ireland's heartland of liberalism and tolerance (see if you get the reference this time) I have to admit to not having much tolerance for state secularism as you seem to want it. I want proper space made in the system for secularism, humanism and atheism, and I want "no religion" given the same respect and standing as "any religion". I do not want Christianity squeezed out of Ireland's culture and public discourse, and I think we would lose more than we would gain were such a thing to happen.

    Here's a thought for you. What you're talking about here - what this thread is about - is Ireland's public realm and its public services. Before you go jumping in with a cure, can you specifically set out what illness you are trying to fix?

    And if you're going to tackle that notion, please do so in the style of atheists rather than the style of religious fundamentalists. Something is not true simply because you believe it to be so; you need to adduce your evidence. So demonstrate what is wrong, and demonstrate how your solutions will make things better, rather than just assuming that what you believe in is true.


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    No, I think you'll find the state primary school curriculum has zero content when it comes to RE.

    You're quite right, that only happens at second level. In my defence, I haven't been paying close attention to my local ET school for a few years. There is some rule for primary schools that a certain amount of time each week has to be set aside for the religious ethos of the school patrons. My son's ET school used that time to teach his class a lot of what I'd call "comparative religion". He became a walking encyclopedia on the ins and outs of all sorts of faiths.

    Actually, I don't think he's ever scored less than 95% in an RE test at school. :eek:

    All the former ET kids seem to be the same. :eek::eek:


  • #55
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I do not want Christianity squeezed out of Ireland's culture and public discourse, and I think we would lose more than we would gain were such a thing to happen.
    Can you explain what you think the country, and the people in it, might lose if all forms of religion were squeezed out?


  • #56
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    robindch wrote: »
    Can you explain what you think the country, and the people in it, might lose if all forms of religion were squeezed out?

    All forms of religion? How would you do that, and what would it mean? Are you for closing the the mosques, churches, and synagogues?


  • #57
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    All forms of religion? How would you do that, and what would it mean? Are you for closing the the mosques, churches, and synagogues?
    Didn't say anything about religion being "closed" down. On the contrary, I'm for educating children without the sickening influence of religion so that they never fall under its spell. I'd also like religious people to make more of an effort not to take people's emotional state, innocence, decency and so on, and turn them into a series of fairly tawdry marketing opportunities.

    But as above, I'd be interested to know how somebody could think that the country will be a lesser place if religion disappears. Other than the sense of direction offered by the vague ritual's offered by the various religions, I must say I can't think of much.


  • #58
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    robindch wrote: »
    Didn't say anything about religion being "closed" down.

    You said something about religion being squeezed out.
    On the contrary, I'm for educating children without the sickening influence of religion so that they never fall under its spell. I'd also like religious people to make more of an effort not to take people's emotional state, innocence, decency and so on, and turn them into a series of fairly tawdry marketing opportunities.

    The "sickening influence" of religion is vastly over-estimated, particularly in RC and Anglican schools ( I cant speak for Madrassas). I also dispute that the moral teaching of Christianity is is entirely sickening. Were religious education so total then the mass going population would be 99%. All schools follow the Curriculum. The fanaticism here is all on the Atheist side.
    But as above, I'd be interested to know how somebody could think that the country will be a lesser place if religion disappears. Other than the sense of direction offered by the vague ritual's offered by the various religions, I must say I can't think of much.

    It depends on what you mean by disappear - what exactly does that mean? How would it happen, why should it happen?


  • #59
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You're looking for a reason to rant about genocide while pretending that it's a result of atheism and not totalitarianism and cult-of-personality politics, aren't you?


  • #60
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    ^^^^^^

    Thats the funniest straw man argument, yet. You should go argue with yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    robindch wrote: »
    Can you explain what you think the country, and the people in it, might lose if all forms of religion were squeezed out?

    Why do you want me to explain that? The question is something of a non sequitur.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement