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

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…3233353738…101

Comments

  • #1022
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    If state funding is to go towards the support of irreligion ... then equality demands that state support should also go to religion.
    If the state funds justice, then equality demands that the state also fund injustice.

    Nope, that's a stupid thing to say too.


  • #1023
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    I'm talking about state schools. If religious groups want to open faith schools, fire ahead but the state shouldn't be involved with those schools.

    And the state must take a stand against any group that would interfere with the secular stance of those schools.
    Interfering between religion and irreligion (to favour irreligion and suppress religion) is not the action of a state that is neutral in matters of religious belief.
    It is the action of an Atheocracy.


  • #1024
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How can something include its antonym? If I said that I wanted all relevant (including irrelevant) information, wouldn't you agree that that would be a stupid thing to say?
    Equality of treatment of people groups demands that people with opposite beiefs (and the beliefs themselves) must be treated with equality.

    ... indeed to do anything else is inequitable.


  • #1025
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Interfering between religion and irreligion (to favour irreligion and suppress religion) is not the action of a state that is neutral in matters of religious belief.
    It is the action of an Atheocracy.

    Wrong.

    Now pay attention, it's time you let this get to the grey matter.

    Secularism is the separation of religion and state.

    The state is not allowed suppress religion. So that's first part of your post addressed.

    The state is not allowed promote atheism. So that's the second part of your post.

    To try and explain this at a level you might understand.

    Religious folk say apples are the best fruit and atheists say pears are best.

    The state makes no statement either way. The schools can teach students about the reasons for liking apples or pears but cannot say either is better.

    It's your contention that by not saying apples are best that the state is saying pears are best.

    Do you see how silly that reasoning is?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1026
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Equality of treatment of people groups demands that people with opposite beiefs (and the beliefs themselves) must be treated with equality.

    ... indeed to do anything else is inequitable.

    so why then do you support creationism in schools and the current RCC dominated school system?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If the state funds justice, then equality demands that the state also fund injustice.

    Nope, that's a stupid thing to say too.
    That's effectively what you guys are suggesting ... that equality demands that the state should in justice, fund irreligious schools and in injustice, it should not fund religious schools.

    Justice applies to all persons equally ... and equality of treatment of people of all beliefs and none ... must not favour atheism over theism or vice versa ...
    ... and if a religiously neutral state supports irreligious schools it must also in equality support religious schools.


  • #1028
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Equality of treatment of people groups demands that people with opposite beiefs (and the beliefs themselves) must be treated with equality.
    Yes. All religious beliefs should be excluded equally from being taught in a state-funded school curriculum.


  • #1029
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    That's effectively what you guys are suggesting ... that equality demands that the stateshould in justice fund irreligious schools and in injustice should not fund religious schools.

    Justice applies to all persons equally ... and equality of treatment of people of all beliefs and none ... must not favour atheism over theism or vice versa ...
    ... and if a religiously neutral state supports irreligious schools it must also in equality support religious schools.

    Please provide evidence of posters demanding that the state should only fund atheist state schools or withdraw the comment.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1030
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Wrong.

    Now pay attention, it's time you let this get to the grey matter.

    Secularism is the separation of religion and state.
    ... and also the separation of irreligion and state.

    The state is not allowed suppress religion. So that's first part of your post addressed.
    Then it must not suppress religion by not funding religious schools while funding irreligious ones.

    The state is not allowed promote atheism. So that's the second part of your post.
    Then it must not suport irreligion by funding irreligious schools while not funding religious ones.

    To try and explain this at a level you might understand.

    Religious folk say apples are the best fruit and atheists say pears are best.

    The state makes no statement either way. The schools can teach students about the reasons for liking apples or pears but cannot say either is better.
    The state should stay out of the argument over apples and pears entirely ... and should fund schools teaching students about the benefits of apples or pears equally.


    It's your contention that by not saying apples are best that the state is saying pears are best.
    It is my contention that a state that is neutral on the benefits of apples or pears should stay out of the argument ... and should fund both sides using equitable objective criteria.

    Do you see how silly that reasoning is?

    I do.
    .:)


  • #1031
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    That's effectively what you guys are suggesting ... that equality demands that the stateshould in justice fund irreligious schools and in injustice should not fund religious schools.
    You're basically claiming that indoctrinating children in religious belief is equivalent to not indoctrinating children in religious belief. Describing a secular education system as "irreligious" is like describing it as "un-Korean". You can't define it by what it doesn't teach.

    Once again: if you want children to be taught that they have to believe in your infinitely-loving all-merciful god or else burn in hell for all eternity, do it on your own dime. I'm not demanding that my taxes be spent on teaching children that your religion is delusional; simply that they not be spent on teaching them that your religion isn't delusional.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Please provide evidence of posters demanding that the state should only fund atheist state schools or withdraw the comment.
    You are demanding that the state should not fund religious schools ... and that in state funded schools that no religous expression should be allowed.
    The only people who could express their worldview and have it supported by the state, in such a situation, would be Atheists/anti-religionists (who aren't necessarily not one and the same thing ... but certainly aren't Theists or Christians).


  • #1033
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... and also the separation of irreligion and state.
    So it's the separation of religion and non-religion. Do explain how that would actually work.
    Then it must not suppress religion by not funding religious schools while funding irreligious ones.
    So you oppose secularism?
    Then it must not suport irreligion by funding irreligious schools while not funding religious ones.
    Why? Irreligion is not atheism. If secular schools are to be separated from religion, then they must logically be non-religious. That is not to say they promote atheism as you will no doubt erroneously claim.
    The state should stay out of the argument over apples and pears entirely ... and should fund schools teaching students about the benefits of apples or pears equally.
    So you want a non-secular system of religious and atheist schools? :confused:
    It is my contention that a state that is neutral on the benefits of apples or pears should stay out of the argument ... and should fund both sides using equitable objective criteria.
    No, because then it's no longer separate from the apple vs. pear debate. Even though it's funding both sides it is no longer secular.
    I do.
    You clearly don't as your response is very muddled.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1034
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You are demanding that the state should not fund religious schools ... and that in state funded schools that no religous expression should be allowed.
    Wrong. I have said repeatedly that I'm okay with a religion class in the lesson plan, something you 'forget' when it suits you. I'm not in favour of state funded faith schools. Big difference.
    The only people who could express their worldview and have it supported by the state, in such a situation, would be Atheists/anti-religionists (which are not one and the same thing ... but certainly aren't Theists or Christians).
    Wrong again. Anti-religion promotion in state schools is directly opposed to secularism.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1035
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're basically claiming that indoctrinating children in religious belief is equivalent to not indoctrinating children in religious belief. Describing a secular education system as "irreligious" is like describing it as "un-Korean". You can't define it by what it doesn't teach.
    Indocrination in irreligion / anti-religion to the point of silencing Christian children in such schools is certainly not taking a neutral position on matters of religion/irreligion.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Once again: if you want children to be taught that they have to believe in your infinitely-loving all-merciful god or else burn in hell for all eternity, do it on your own dime. I'm not demanding that my taxes be spent on teaching children that your religion is delusional; simply that they not be spent on teaching them that your religion isn't delusional.
    Taxes must not be spent favouring one side over another ... and if your beliefs in the invalidity of religion are to be supported with your tax money in irreligious schools ... then my beliefs in an ever loving and just God should be equally supported by my tax money (and millions like me) in religious schools.


  • #1036
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    JC

    Do you think an Imam should be allowed to go into an RC school for a couple of hours a week and teach about Islam? Should he be allowed to tell the young impressionable about how if they don't pray 5 times a day to Allah they will pay for it in the next life? If you are going to insist on religion being taught in schools then ALL religion should be taught. I would love to see the head pervert in Romes face if that decree was made.


  • #1037
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Indocrination in irreligion / anti-religion to the point of silencing Christian children in such schools...
    ...is entirely your invention. I and others will keep repeating this, if for no other reason than to highlight your intellectual dishonesty in ignoring it: secular education does not involve indoctrination in atheism.

    You can acknowledge that point, or you can keep arguing with a straw man. Your call.
    ...if your beliefs in the invalidity of religion are to be supported with your tax money in irreligious schools...
    I never asked for that, but I'm happy to reiterate: I'm equally happy for atheism not to be taught in school as I am for Christianity not to be taught in school. Fair enough?


  • #1038
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Wrong. I have said repeatedly that I'm okay with a religion class in the lesson plan, something you 'forget' when it suits you. I'm not in favour of state funded faith schools. Big difference.

    Wrong again. Anti-religion promotion in state schools is directly opposed to secularism.
    You are happy with religious education in the lesson plan ... from what perspective?
    Is it to be orthodox Christianity ... or just some kind of scoffing view, typical of the disrespect shown on this thread?

    ... and if a Christian child is to be silenced and ultimately expelled for expressing their faith in your version of a state school, then such a school could only be termed an anti-religious school ... which is indeed not what a liberal secular school should do.


  • #1039
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You are happy with religious education in the lesson plan ... from what perspective?
    Is it to be orthodox Christianity ... or just some kind of scoffing view, typical of the disrespect shown on this thread?
    From an objective perspective, in the same manner you'd learn about any other subject. Just the facts and no faith formation. And as said before, boards is no where representative of what happens in the education system.
    ... and if a Christian child is to be silenced and ultimately expelled for expressing their faith in your version of a state school, then such a school could only be termed an anti-religious school ... which is indeed not what a liberal secular school should do.
    What? Why would a child be expelled? What have they done? you need to share the hypothetical with the rest of us so we can at least respond before suffering slings and arrows from yourself. It's just good manners.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1040
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    bumper234 wrote: »
    JC

    Do you think an Imam should be allowed to go into an RC school for a couple of hours a week and teach about Islam? Should he be allowed to tell the young impressionable about how if they don't pray 5 times a day to Allah they will pay for it in the next life? If you are going to insist on religion being taught in schools then ALL religion should be taught. I would love to see the head pervert in Romes face if that decree was made.
    He certainly should be allowed to minister to pupils who are Muslim within the school.
    ... and he should be welcome to talk to the school community about his faith.
    That's what a liberal and truly pluralist education should be all about.
    My Christianity isn't so vulnerable or weak that I want to silence all opposing/alternative voices.


  • #1041
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    He certainly should be allowed to minister to pupils who are Muslim within the school.
    ... and he should be welcome to talk to the school community about his faith.
    That's what a liberal and truly pluralist education should be all about.
    My Christianity isn't so vulnerable or weak that I want to silence all opposing/alternative voices.

    Why just the Muslim children? If you insist that Christianity should be taught in school (even to non Christian children) then surely Islam should get an equal amount of time to be taught to ALL children.


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    He certainly should be allowed to minister to pupils who are Muslim within the school.
    ... and he should be welcome to talk to the school community about his faith.
    That's what a liberal and truly pluralist education should be all about.
    My Christianity isn't so vulnerable or weak that I want to silence all opposing/alternative voices.

    bumper234
    Why just the Muslim children? If you insist that Christianity should be taught in school (even to non Christian children) then surely Islam should get an equal amount of time to be taught to ALL children.
    You have conveniently forgot to read the second part of my answer ...
    Quote:-
    ...and he should be welcome to talk to the school community about his faith.

    ... unlike your sectarian model of school where he would be met at the door and asked to leave forthwith!!!!


  • #1043
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    You have conveniently forgot to read the second part of my answer ...
    Quote:-
    ...and he should be welcome to talk to the school community about his faith.

    ... unlike your sectarian model of school where he would be met at the door and asked to leave fortwith!!!!

    Considering you're the one advocating a school system divided by religious grouping, it's extremely rich for you to accuse another of sectarian tendencies.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1044
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    You have conveniently forgot to read the second part of my answer ...
    Quote:-
    ...and he should be welcome to talk to the school community about his faith.

    ... unlike your sectarian model of school where he would be met at the door and asked to leave fortwith!!!!

    I'm not on about him coming in for a chat and a cup of tea I'm talking about Islam religion classes. A child has 2 hours of Christian religious class a week then they should also have 2 hours of Islam classes a week. Would you agree that this should be implemented to give children the best religious education possible? Also please point to the post where I made any such sectarian statements or withdraw that lie please.


  • #1045
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    From an objective perspective, in the same manner you'd learn about any other subject. Just the facts and no faith formation. And as said before, boards is no where representative of what happens in the education system.

    What? Why would a child be expelled? What have they done? you need to share the hypothetical with the rest of us so we can at least respond before suffering slings and arrows from yourself. It's just good manners.
    They would have broken the school rule banning the expression of religious belief in the school ... and thus would be expelled in accordance with this anti-religious rule.


  • #1046
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bumper234 wrote: »
    A child has 2 hours of Christian religious class a week then they should also have 2 hours of Islam classes a week.
    What about Buddhism? Judaism? Hinduism? Jainism? Pastafarianism?

    What are you, some sort of bigot?

    :pac:


  • #1047
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    They would have broken the school rule banning the expression of religious belief in the school ...
    Would that be the rule you invented so you can continue to be outraged by it?

    You know, the straw man I pointed out already?


  • #1048
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    They would have broken the school rule banning the expression of religious belief in the school ... and thus would be expelled in accordance with this anti-religious rule.

    What sort of schools did you go to? :eek: Teachers in my schools would just have a talk with the kid to explain that sort of behaviour isn't allowed by the rules. That's how teachers should do it, rather than go Old Testament and banish them from the school.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1049
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What about Buddhism? Judaism? Hinduism? Jainism? Pastafarianism?

    What are you, some sort of bigot?

    :pac:

    Nope I just want to see if JC agrees that children should get educated about different religions or will he be biased and say only Christianity should be taught in RCC schools.


  • #1050
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    Considering you're the one advocating a school system divided by religious grouping, it's extremely rich for you to accuse another of sectarian tendencies.
    Respecting the right of others to believe as they wish doesn't mean that I cannot arrange for my children to be preferntially taught my religious beliefs.

    The objective is choice ... but I cannot realistically expect that Creationist Schools will be established (within the next year anyway) ... and I therefore choose the school that most meets my preferences. It used to be Liberal Secularist Schools ... but now I will be favouring mainstream Christian ones, having seen where 'secularism' is apparently heading, on this thread and others.

    You can do the same ... nobody is stopping you.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,034 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Respecting the right of others to believe as they wish doesn't mean that I cannot arrange for my children to be preferntially taught my religious beliefs.

    The objective is choice ... but I cannot realistically expect that Creationist Schools will be established (within the next year anyway) ... and I therefore choose the school that most meets my preferences. It used to be Liberal Secularist Schools ... but now I will be favouring mainstream Christian ones, having seen where 'secularism' is apparently heading, on this thread and others.

    You can do the same ... nobody is stopping you.

    No thanks. Prefer secularism to religious segregation. You can of course start a faith school with other Christian parents, but the state should be entirely secular when it comes to public schools.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement