Swanner wrote: » Despite the fact that they identify themselves as atheists ? Dangerous position that. You're defining and labelling their beliefs based on your own. And I'm not out to belittle anyone. I apologise if anyone feels belittled.. I'll try and choose my words more carefully.. But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.
Pherekydes wrote: » I think you'll find that atheists are usually the ones who look at religions with an unbiased eye.
Samaris wrote: » If they're atheist - have no faith in a god or the existence of gods - then they are very confused altogether if they support creationism! (And let's be honest here, Intelligent Design is the renamed version of creationism). Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and all, but not their own facts. An atheist who accepts ID should probably reconsider their viewpoints. Despite that, people are people and quite capable of believing contradictory things. But it shouldn't be presented as a mainstream atheistic view.
Mind you, I don't agree with that either. Atheists can look at a religious belief system, but they will have, by their own atheistic beliefs*, have prejudged it to be incorrect, just as a Christian going by the rules of their own religion, will look at atheism or, hell, any other religion, and prejudge it to be inaccurate. We're all going to be biased one way or another.
*Awkward word, I know, but I don't have a better one.
Huntergonzo wrote: » I don't believe in God but I do believe in intelligent design, I mean whoever designed the smartphone I'm using to post this message must have been pretty damn intelligent, maybe that's the sort of ID he means :-)
Swanner wrote: » I never said anything about anyone's intelligence. I do however stand by the point that if you have zero experience of religious belief and zero knowledge of religion because your atheist parents have raised you that way, you will not be in a position to engage in a balanced theological discussion. By the way i'd be of exactly the same opinion should that child be raised by fundamentalist parents of any religion. FYP Yes there is. Plenty of it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Please stop with that phrase "victim blaming". It's meaningless. You're not the victim of anything. People have differences of opinion all the time and not everything goes their way all the time. It doesn't mean they're the "victim" of anything. Yeah it does, that's how people get what they want, they speak up and they get support from other people who feel the same way they do. That's how conditions improve for people. You know this because you've been on the PA, you've achieved things, you've made progress on some issues, you haven't on other issues. Being on the PA and the BOM myself, I know exactly what it's like - not everyone has ever agreed with policies I've tried to introduce into the school, but I've never claimed I was the 'victim' of anything, because that would be silly. It's your "I'm a victim" approach which misses the central point IMO. You even miss it when you talk about how changes were implemented in the school, but when you moved on, the progress that was made slipped back into old habits. That's why people need to speak up, because while it should be a fundamental principle of all schools to involve all the students in all activities, it's also the responsibility of all parents to get involved in the school and get involved in activities. Parents that don't feel they should have to do anything shouldn't expect that the school will be all that bothered either. In an ideal world the parents could just do a stop 'n' drop and have no further interaction with the school, and the school would churn out well-rounded little geniuses and all the rest of it, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'm trying to avoid being patronising here, but this is just common sense stuff - nothing changes unless something happens to change it. If everyone dismisses it as someone else's responsibility, then nothing changes because nobody is complaining so the perception is that everyone is happy with the status quo. Expecting parents to behave like parents? Shocking! Meanwhile, how do you think every other parent with school-going children manages to do it without claiming "I'm a victim" and expecting the world to revolve around them because they feel they shouldn't have to do anything to change their circumstances? Without again meaning to sound patronising, but you know all this stuff already - change doesn't happen in a vacuum and without people speaking up and cooperating with each other to achieve the aims that benefit the group as a whole.
Swanner wrote: » But I'm not going to pretend that compete censorship of all religious knowledge can ever lead to a balanced and informed mind on matters of theology because it can't.
Swanner wrote: » There are a handful of atheists who support intelligent design and have presented theories that allow it sit in relative comfort with Atheism. Some more successfully then others to be fair.
Swanner wrote: » No they're not. Plenty of atheists support ID.
looksee wrote: » Isn't it interesting though that the atheists in this forum have the confidence and security to put up with all the evidence-lite nonsense that is being thrown around by theists, and the condescension and smug superiority in their 'knowledge', while their own forum has to defend them against the bould atheists in case their pedestals might be shaken?
RainyDay wrote: » The victims who you seem to wish to ignore are the students who are excluded from certain activities, and made to feel like they not full, normal students of the school.
It is interesting that pointing out this discrimination seems distasteful to you. And it is also interesting that based on your posts, the entire responsibility for fixing this lies with the parents to 'speak up'.
You don't assign any responsibility to the school BoM or management to change their approaches to include all students in school activities, unless parents are 'speaking up' to a level that meets your standard.
Pherekydes wrote: » They can self-identify as they wish? It doesn't make it so. I'm not labelling them. They are labelling themselves incorrectly.
Swanner wrote: » You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand their thought process better then they do. I don't believe that's ever ok.
Swanner wrote: » You're telling an atheist they're not an atheist and assuming to understand they're thought process better then they do. I don't believe that's ever ok.
RainyDay wrote: » And then you took a further shot at those who get a secular education by indicating that they will not be up to discussion such complicated issues as yourself - more cheap tactics.
RainyDay wrote: » I'm very curious as to whether the reverse applies - whether in your opinion those who are brought up with a religious education are less capable of discussing matters of atheism than those who are brought up with a secular education?
Huntergonzo wrote: » But people call themselves all sorts of funny things (which they are entitled to of course), again I do know a 'catholic' who doesn't believe in God. Now I never heard of an atheist who believes in intelligent design, the 2 are non-compatible, but that's not to say those people aren't out there, the world is a mad place.
Swanner wrote: » The theories are a bit nuts if you read them. But then isn't that what some atheists would say about theists ? It's nuts to believe in a fairy story that can never be proven. If you go down that road anyone with an opposing view or one you don't fully understand can be considered nuts. That wouldn't be a pleasant world to live in. And while I might inwardly try and figure out your RC friends thought process, I would never feel like I had the right to tell him he's not Roman Catholic. That to me would feel like a major judgement.
Swanner wrote: » The theories are a bit nuts if you read them.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You seem to want to ignore the fact that the school is a religious ethos school, and the parents do not share the religious ethos of the school are not being asked to participate in activities which are religious in nature, yet it is the school's responsibility to include these children in spite of the fact that their parents do not want them to participate in religious activities... Would you prefer that the school involved the children in religious activities, in spite of their parents wishes to have them excluded? It's not distasteful to me at all. In order to form any judgement either way, I'd first have to understand what your problem is - you want your children excluded from religious activities, but you want your children included in religious activities? How do you expect the school to know if you don't tell them? If the school involved your children in religious activities without your express consent, they'd still be in the wrong, so I can understand why they would err on the side of caution so as not to cause offence to you as the children's parent. You seem surprised by that common sense approach? The school has a religious ethos, and so it's taken as a given that some children who do not share that ethos will not be required to participate in those religious activities. That's what you want, isn't it? Or is it that you expect the BOM and the school to organise activities around your work schedule and in a way which suits you, and they're supposed to be able to guess what and when suits you, without you having to communicate with them? You've got to be joking, surely?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Some people aren't satisfied with just preventing their own children from exposure to ideas they disagree with, but they want everyone else's children prevented from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with too! If that's not condescending, arrogant superiority, I don't know what is tbh. Personally, I would consider one extreme as abhorrent and intolerant as the other, and that's why secularism is a good thing - because some adults just don't know how to play nice together.
RainyDay wrote: » I've already answered very clearly what I'd expect the school to do in this post. Unsurprisingly (as you well know), I do NOT expect the school to involve the child in religious activities when they know the child is of a different religion or no religion. The school ask about religion on the application form, so they already know the religion (or absence of religion) of each child. I expect them to run an inclusive school, so that all children in the school participate in school.
As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.
Swanner wrote: » Once again you're only approaching this from a limited personal view which is a shame because it hinders your ability to learn new ideas.
RainyDay wrote: » As you well know, it's a long way off knowing how to 'play nice together'. It's a matter of public funds being used to support one particular religious approach. I've never come across anyone who wants to 'prevent children from being exposed to those ideas they disagree with'. They just don't want their taxes being used to pay for exposing children to those ideas that they disagree with in a way which says those ideas are right, and everyone else is wrong.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school).
You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.
Samaris wrote: » That's fine, it evens the playing field somewhat, although given ET is a privately-owned charity, I'm unsure how all the funding business works.
Those choices are harder to get at. Most people have relatively little choice where they send their kids, it will be down to proximity and cost. But it makes more sense to have everyone at a basic standing, being taught -educational- things in school. Indoctrination, into any religion or none, should be an optional thing, not having to go out of one's way to avoid it in places kids are legally obliged to be (in school).
How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?
Samaris wrote: » How many people would prefer their kids to have an extra hour of maths, language, science, PE versus catechism?
frostyjacks wrote: » Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.
Shrap wrote: » Are you even aware of how aggressive that sounds?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Still missing the point of a school with a Roman Catholic ethos then?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Public funds are apportioned to all national schools regardless of their ethos, so it's simply not the case that one particular religious ethos is favoured over another. ET schools receive the same funding from the State as the funding is to provide for education, depending upon the number of students in the school (off the top of my head I think it's about €264 per student regardless of the ethos of the school). You really don't have a choice in where your taxes are spent as the State has a duty to provide for the education of all children, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the ethos of the schools. If you'd rather children were not exposed to ideas you disagree with, then you have other options available to you, many of which have been discussed at length in this forum already, but which lack the necessary support to be presented as a viable option for parents.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You're already aware on a small scale at least, how apathetic some parents can be as long as their children are receiving some form of education. They don't care enough to lend their active support to a change in the status quo, and so the status quo shall remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. I genuinely do appreciate your situation, and I understand where you're coming from, but you're consistently missing the most obvious solution to the problem IMO - lack of involvement and lack of support from other parents. They too have their own priorities just as much as you, or I, or anyone else here has.
frostyjacks wrote: » Clearly most parents are happy for their children to learn about religion, given the absence of any real opposition to it. I would rather children receive a well-rounded education, given that religion is an integral part of our identity in this country. If some parents want to indoctrinate their children with atheist dogma, they are free to do it in their own time. If they have an issue with freedom of religion then they should seriously consider emigrating. Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.
RainyDay wrote: » What specific parts of 'Roman Catholic ethos' would rule out including some non-denominational Christmas carols as part of the concert, or having one teacher stay behind to supervise others when most go to Mass, or inviting ALL students and families to the communion and confirmation celebrations?
In fact, would it not be living Christian values to actively include all students?
I don't have a choice in where taxes are spent, but as a citizen, we ALL have an interest in how they are spent. To spend public money to support the belief system of SOME people is just plain wrong.
Once again, blame the parents - and still not a single word from you to suggest that you believe that schools should be inclusive as a basic value, and not wait for parents to kick up a fuss - very telling.
It's really funny how you attack 'indoctrination with atheist dogma' which being completely blind to the institutionalised indoctrination with RC dogma that has been going on for a couple of hundred years. There should be no indoctrination with any dogma in schools. Let parents arrange their own indoctrination at their own expense if that is their thing.
It's a standard tactic, when running out of any sensible or rational debate - just get aggressive and throw in a touch of racism too.
One eyed Jack wrote: » They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Assuming I am willing to have my children segregated from others purely on the grounds of religion, which I am not, please outline the practical alternatives to religious ethos schooling available to me. ... ... Nope. There aren't any. That's the problem. You don't get it and it doesn't seem that you want to either.
Gallagher1 wrote: » Atheists have absolutely zero problem learning new ideas provided they contain a crucial ingredient. Evidence.
Gallagher1 wrote: » If someone proved God's existence tomorrow there would be two certainities 1) We would all wholehearted accept this God 2) The person who proved it would be hailed as the greatest mind in the history of mankind.
Gallagher1 wrote: » Until then I refuse to believe in God and wouldn't want my future children to have sizeable chunks of their educational time taken up by indoctrination into a substance-less faith whether it be Scientology, Mormonism or, dare I say, Christianity.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)