Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

lazygal wrote: »

My kids call us mummy and daddy, as we did until we were teenagers when we gradually switched to using their first names. They also call my parents by their names. No disrespect whatsoever.

I don't think it's disrespectful. I think I'm just lazy, lazygal, if my daughter were to shout from the door "I'm just going to Mary's! " instead of " I'm just going to Granny's!" Then I would have to shout back"Mary who?" Instead of "ok!" Then she'd have to retort " Mary your mother!"
Too much bother
Likewise if I'm making the dinner and she's standing there moaning as she does about her teachers ( they don't appreciate the fact that she gets up out of bed to go down to that school, it's outrageous) I would be at a complete loss if she was referring to them by their Christian names. Maybe it's just me.

lazygal

wokingvoter wrote: »

This is very interesting. Do you have kids? Do they call your parents Paddy and Mary for example?

My kids call us mummy and daddy, as we did until we were teenagers when we gradually switched to using their first names. They also call my parents by their names. No disrespect whatsoever.

Tasden

wokingvoter wrote: »

I never said anybody was rude, badly brought up
Your confusing me with someone else

Chill out, was just a joke

Tasden wrote: »

How rude of the receptionist in that case, must have been dragged up :pac:

I never said anybody was rude, badly brought up
Your confusing me with someone else

Tasden

wokingvoter wrote: »

Actually I call my GP Paul. And if you ring for an appointment the receptionist will say" I'll put you down for 3pm with Paul"
Not even a second name, never mind the title.

How rude of the receptionist in that case, must have been dragged up :pac:

Tasden wrote: »

The majority of GPs are referred to as Dr. Last name. It's on the surgery listings, the door, the prescription, the receptionist will use it and so do the patients. In my experience, it's rarely a "respecting the 7 years of study" and more just what is the norm when it comes to referring to your GP.

Actually I call my GP Paul. And if you ring for an appointment the receptionist will say" I'll put you down for 3pm with Paul"
Not even a second name, never mind the title.

Tasden

wokingvoter wrote: »

My 18 year old LC daughter and her friends have just emerged after a late night last night
Some of their teachers are really only 4/5 years older than them but they're still Ms Ryan and Ms Maher etc
I've asked them how would they feel if they were told that they could address them by their Christian names
Without hesitation there was a collective unanimous "eeewwww" reaction
"Teachers are teachers. They're not friends. Oh no that would be weird in a creepy kind of way"
My daughter is a young adult full of confidence and plenty of self esteem but she still refers to her primary school teachers from 10+ years ago as Ms Jordan etc
She also addresses her GP as Dr. I didn't tell her that the GP must be addressed as Dr. I think it's important to her that her GP studied for 7 years in order to be in a position to decide whether or not she needs an antibiotic so she's Dr. not Colette

The majority of GPs are referred to as Dr. Last name. It's on the surgery listings, the door, the prescription, the receptionist will use it and so do the patients. In my experience, it's rarely a "respecting the 7 years of study" and more just what is the norm when it comes to referring to your GP.

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

We're talking about children here, who're not old enough yet to be fully responsible to be calling adults by their first names and not Sir/Miss, once they are mature and also by the teachers permission that certainly beens they're permitted to call by their first names.

Whoever mentioned 'Work Colleagues' etc thats a total different story, of course you wouldn't call them by Mr/Sir , thats common sense really..

Also if you call your parents by their first names then ye weren't brought up the right way and weren't taught manners at all

I call my mother by her first name and my mother in law too. In fact I can't remember the last time I addressed anyone by Mr or Ms. My kids call adults by their first name cause its their name, what else would you call someone. If I met someone fussy enough to want to be called by their title I would oblige but I don't seem to meet anyone like that.

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

Also if you call your parents by their first names then ye weren't brought up the right way and weren't taught manners at all [/b]

Whoaaaa there horsey!! :pac:

That is absolutely, and categorically untrue, and an absolutely horrible judgement to pass on anyone's parents. I was with you while you were taking heat for your own standards, but when you pass judgement on other people like that?

You're on your own there mate!

My 18 year old LC daughter and her friends have just emerged after a late night last night
Some of their teachers are really only 4/5 years older than them but they're still Ms Ryan and Ms Maher etc
I've asked them how would they feel if they were told that they could address them by their Christian names
Without hesitation there was a collective unanimous "eeewwww" reaction
"Teachers are teachers. They're not friends. Oh no that would be weird in a creepy kind of way"
My daughter is a young adult full of confidence and plenty of self esteem but she still refers to her primary school teachers from 10+ years ago as Ms Jordan etc
She also addresses her GP as Dr. I didn't tell her that the GP must be addressed as Dr. I think it's important to her that her GP studied for 7 years in order to be in a position to decide whether or not she needs an antibiotic so she's Dr. not Colette

Cabaal wrote: »

So calling a person by their name is a lack of respect? Nonsense,

Talking of calling people by Mr, Miss etc, my wife a few years back did a Fetac course, the course was being done by a local school teacher and she started the class and requesting that everyone must call her "Miss". Now keep in mind that most of the people in the course were 25-50 years of age.

The only people that called her "Miss" were the people fresh out of the same school the teacher was in a few months previously. The rest refused....she wasn't happy.

The same teacher also wanted to stop the class at 12 for the angelus every day and pray, again people told here that wasn't happening. Again she wasn't impressed.

Not calling a person Mr or Miss is not disrespectful if you still use their proper name, after all if ti was then that must mean I show no respect for my boss
:rolleyes:

The story above also shows the importance of separating church and state, here we had tax payer money being used to facilitate a Fetac course and we had a teacher that wanted to waste class time with prayers.

How do I put this... (as politely as possible I suppose), but I'm rather cynical of that whole FETAC story. Fine, you may claim it to be true and all, grand, but I find it incredible to believe (and we both know I have some incredible beliefs of my own

), maybe it was the part about insisting on an adult learning course that she be called Miss, but the part about stopping class for the angelus? Come on now, there's far fetched, and there's almost divine exaggeration!

It's easy understand where LuckyDude is coming from, and anyone living in Ireland (in fact any country in the world really) at least the last 30 years, would be aware of the idea at least, that most people do not call their parents by their first names. Their parents are their parents, not their mates, or their teachers, or their boss.

I know it's not a thing that started off in ET schools, and one of my teachers back in a Christian Brothers School used insist we could call him by his nick-name 'Chippy', but it was all I could do to resist the urge to call him 'Imbecile' instead. It's an informality that some people are comfortable with, some people aren't. I've never been comfortable with it myself, but it is what it is, and if a person wants to be referred to by their given title, whatever that title may be, I don't think society is going to fall apart at the seams.

What it has to do with secularism, or separation of Church and State though, is beyond my understanding.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Not calling a person Mr or Miss is not disrespectful if you still use their proper name, after all if ti was then that must mean I show no respect for my boss
:rolleyes:

Well.... it kind of is. Using a persons given name without their permission is disrespectful; it's up to them whether or not you can use it. In a formal setting (which a learning environment may or may not be, depending on the person in charge of it), it's not unreasonable to expect formalities to be observed, therefore titles and surnames. I suspect your boss told you you could use their first name, at very least by introducing themselves by it? You might be surprised by how many workplaces do still observe formalities.

So using a persons first name is not disrespectful if they allow you to do so, otherwise it is. Using someones surname without the honorific is pretty much always disrespectful... even at Eton.

Parents of a particular background are inclined to want their children to use their names, and that's fair enough; it's up to the parents whether they permit their children to do so.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Cabaal wrote: »

So calling a person by their name is a lack of respect? Nonsense,

Talking of calling people by Mr, Miss etc, my wife a few years back did a Fetac course, the course was being done by a local school teacher and she started the class and requesting that everyone must call her "Miss". Now keep in mind that most of the people in the course were 25-50 years of age.

The only people that called her "Miss" were the people fresh out of the same school the teacher was in a few months previously. The rest refused....she wasn't happy.

The same teacher also wanted to stop the class at 12 for the angelus every day and pray, again people told here that wasn't happening. Again she wasn't impressed.

Not calling a person Mr or Miss is not disrespectful if you still use their proper name, after all if ti was then that must mean I show no respect for my boss
:rolleyes:

The story above also shows the importance of separating church and state, here we had tax payer money being used to facilitate a Fetac course and we had a teacher that wanted to waste class time with prayers.

We're talking about children here, who're not old enough yet to be fully responsible to be calling adults by their first names and not Sir/Miss, once they are mature and also by the teachers permission that certainly beens they're permitted to call by their first names.

Whoever mentioned 'Work Colleagues' etc thats a total different story, of course you wouldn't call them by Mr/Sir , thats common sense really..

Also if you call your parents by their first names then ye weren't brought up the right way and weren't taught manners at all

lazygal wrote: »

I call my parents by their names. I'm capable of treating people with respect without using titles. I respect my work colleagues without calling them Miss or Sir.

This is very interesting. Do you have kids? Do they call your parents Paddy and Mary for example?

Cabaal

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

So calling a person by their name is a lack of respect? Nonsense,

Talking of calling people by Mr, Miss etc, my wife a few years back did a Fetac course, the course was being done by a local school teacher and she started the class and requesting that everyone must call her "Miss". Now keep in mind that most of the people in the course were 25-50 years of age.

The only people that called her "Miss" were the people fresh out of the same school the teacher was in a few months previously. The rest refused....she wasn't happy.

The same teacher also wanted to stop the class at 12 for the angelus every day and pray, again people told here that wasn't happening. Again she wasn't impressed.

Not calling a person Mr or Miss is not disrespectful if you still use their proper name, after all if ti was then that must mean I show no respect for my boss
:rolleyes:

The story above also shows the importance of separating church and state, here we had tax payer money being used to facilitate a Fetac course and we had a teacher that wanted to waste class time with prayers.

lazygal

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

I call my parents by their names. I'm capable of treating people with respect without using titles. I respect my work colleagues without calling them Miss or Sir.

LuckyDude12 wrote: »

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

Cause students in more formal schools are never disrespectful :rolleyes: It's not a lack of respect if everyone is okay with it. I hate being referred to as Ms , I much prefer people call me by my first name, it's more friendly imo. My kid may call his teachers by their first name but he has the up most respect for them.

9de5q7tsr8u2im

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I can't stand the way children in my sons school seem to be expected to refer to teachers as 'Miss' and 'Sir'. Not even Ms, Mrs and Mr followed by surname, but just 'Miss' and 'Sir'. First names much better.

You're joking me, im a college student and i sometimes make a mistake of calling my own lecturer Miss or Sir even though you're allowed to call them by your first name...

Thats like calling your parents by their first names, total lack of respect..

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

Educate together doesn't discriminate, that's a major part of its ethos so it can't send Catholic kids away. Besides its not always the case that Catholic parents want their kids in a Catholic school. ET is not just a no faith formation school, it's entirely different to a lot of Catholic schools, no uniform, teachers called by their first name, no desks ( in my son's school they only use desks for writing ). Personally I don't think it's failed, its given parents like me a chance to have their child educated in a model that is similar to how we live at home. That wouldn't be an option in my local Catholic school.

I can't stand the way children in my sons school seem to be expected to refer to teachers as 'Miss' and 'Sir'. Not even Ms, Mrs and Mr followed by surname, but just 'Miss' and 'Sir'. First names much better.

iguana

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't thinking that extreme though that it couldn't even be mentioned, but mention of it of course in a historical context would be fine. It would more be the amount of time spent indulging the beliefs and traditions of the various religions, spending a considerable amount of school time critiquing their history, philosophy and politics and so on - time that could be spent on the basics like reading, writing and mathematics.

Religion would have to be more than mentioned. It would have to be taught about to varying degrees of depth in order to give proper context to history/geography/civics lessons. For example, you have to understand the idea of transubstantiation in order to understand why the position that the communion bread is just bread was so revolutionary.

I dunno either tbh about teachers being given the responsibility to introduce the negatives of the religions. I know you mean it to present a broader picture, but there'd undoubtedly be complaints from some parents that their children are coming home from school traumatised! :pac:

I don't think that there needs to be any sort of class on the negatives of religion. Because I don't think religion should be a class of it's own. Education about religion should happen when it is an necessary part of another subject and then it must be an honest assessment. But if religion classes are taught, then only presenting minimal, fairly neutral facts along with lots of positive lessons about feast days and celebrations it teaches a false lesson and that is worse than teaching no lesson at all.

Absolam

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Could you imagine if the German people today just 'buried their heads in the sand' regarding the Nazi regime and didn't wholeheartedly denounce them and separate Nazi indoctrination from Education/Healthcare/Society in general?

Before people think I'm being sensationalist because the Nazis Killed 6 million Jews, the Catholic Church's crimes in its long history (albeit a lot longer than Nazi Rule) are in the same category of heinousness.

I'm sure there's a name for this kind of argument...

iguana wrote: »

You can't teach numerous subjects without also teaching a solid understanding of various religions. Just imagine; Henry VIII wanted to remarry as Katherine of Aragon had not produced a male heir who lived past infancy. But he couldn't because........... reasons. Being the king he changed the law and........ other things to suit himself and declared his marriage to Katherine annulled and his daughter Mary a royal bastard. Then he married Anne Boleyn. This caused uproar throughout Europe and at home as it obviously upset the balance of power in Europe, undermining Spanish influence in England, making the Howard family, who Boleyn was part of, very powerful and p'ing off rival familys like the Seymours. But also other................. major reasons which would go on to have lasting repercussions for centuries but we can't talk about.

People need to know about religion in order to further their understanding of the world's past, present and (at a minimum) near future. And if we expect schools to provide children with an educational foundation, that has to include religion. But it has to be an honest (albeit age appropriate) education about religion. Not a lovely look at the best bits and a promotion of the idea that beliefs in themselves need to be respected.

Yeah I see what you mean

I wasn't thinking that extreme though that it couldn't even be mentioned, but mention of it of course in a historical context would be fine. It would more be the amount of time spent indulging the beliefs and traditions of the various religions, spending a considerable amount of school time critiquing their history, philosophy and politics and so on - time that could be spent on the basics like reading, writing and mathematics.

I dunno either tbh about teachers being given the responsibility to introduce the negatives of the religions. I know you mean it to present a broader picture, but there'd undoubtedly be complaints from some parents that their children are coming home from school traumatised! :pac:

There's a great programme on weekday mornings before school time, I think it's called "Horrible Histories", the young lad watches it, I'd love to see something like that done in schools to bring history to life for the students in a way they can really relate to and enjoy.

I think though it's important for children to go outside the curriculum in their own time to get a broader understanding of what they're learning about in school, that's why even though he goes to an RC school, I've introduced my young lad to a couple of other major world religions in our own time.

Gallagher1

galljga1 wrote: »

Re the whole paedophile episode, I cannot understand how so many people over generations buried their heads in the sand and let it continue, not just the clergy but society in general: our mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts. How can people stay associated with this organisation? That includes the oft referred to "good" priests.

Could you imagine if the German people today just 'buried their heads in the sand' regarding the Nazi regime and didn't wholeheartedly denounce them and separate Nazi indoctrination from Education/Healthcare/Society in general?

Before people think I'm being sensationalist because the Nazis Killed 6 million Jews, the Catholic Church's crimes in its long history (albeit a lot longer than Nazi Rule) are in the same category of heinousness.

iguana

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I read your post, I was thinking you were putting forward an argument for religion being kept outside of the school walls, and that much I would have agreed with, in a State run school.

You can't teach numerous subjects without also teaching a solid understanding of various religions. Just imagine; Henry VIII wanted to remarry as Katherine of Aragon had not produced a male heir who lived past infancy. But he couldn't because........... reasons. Being the king he changed the law and........ other things to suit himself and declared his marriage to Katherine annulled and his daughter Mary a royal bastard. Then he married Anne Boleyn. This caused uproar throughout Europe and at home as it obviously upset the balance of power in Europe, undermining Spanish influence in England, making the Howard family, who Boleyn was part of, very powerful and p'ing off rival familys like the Seymours. But also other................. major reasons which would go on to have lasting repercussions for centuries but we can't talk about.

People need to know about religion in order to further their understanding of the world's past, present and (at a minimum) near future. And if we expect schools to provide children with an educational foundation, that has to include religion. But it has to be an honest (albeit age appropriate) education about religion. Not a lovely look at the best bits and a promotion of the idea that beliefs in themselves need to be respected.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the problem though, that's why I said it's failed in it's efforts to be all things to all people. It was meant to accommodate families like your own who aren't RC, as they hadn't expected parents who identify as RC would want to send their children to a school that didn't have a RC ethos.

The problem is now that because they don't discriminate, the schools are mostly filled with the children of parents who identify as RC, and children who aren't RC still can't get in - their parents don't want to enrol them in an RC school, and they can't get them into an ET school, leaving them in a rock and a hard place situation.

Depends on the area, where I am Catholic children would be in the minority, it's mostly Muslim and other Christian denominations. I can see how in another area it might be different and I get your point, its a bit crazy to have a non Catholic child in a Catholic school because a Catholic took an ET place but everyone should have an equal chance of an ET place, not just those who aren't Catholic. You can't run a school with an ethos of equality and then discriminate.

eviltwin wrote: »

Educate together doesn't discriminate, that's a major part of its ethos so it can't send Catholic kids away. Besides its not always the case that Catholic parents want their kids in a Catholic school. ET is not just a no faith formation school, it's entirely different to a lot of Catholic schools, no uniform, teachers called by their first name, no desks ( in my son's school they only use desks for writing ). Personally I don't think it's failed, its given parents like me a chance to have their child educated in a model that is similar to how we live at home. That wouldn't be an option in my local Catholic school.

That's the problem though, that's why I said it's failed in it's efforts to be all things to all people. It was meant to accommodate families like your own who aren't RC, as they hadn't expected parents who identify as RC would want to send their children to a school that didn't have a RC ethos.

The problem is now that because they don't discriminate, the schools are mostly filled with the children of parents who identify as RC, and children who aren't RC still can't get in - their parents don't want to enrol them in an RC school, and they can't get them into an ET school, leaving them in a rock and a hard place situation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't quite what happened though in that particular case. The school prides itself on it's recognition of diversity and so on, but whatever the teacher was thinking holding up the magazine in front of the class with the depiction of their prophet Muhammad on the cover, with two Muslim children in the class, and then the principal engages in arse covering mode talking about liberty and all the rest of it, that was bound to make an unfortunate error in judgement a whole lot worse.

As I read your post, I was thinking you were putting forward an argument for religion being kept outside of the school walls, and that much I would have agreed with, in a State run school. I think the ET model has failed in trying to be all things to all people. It's just a mixed bag of ideologies and barely skimming the surface of each one. It was intended to accommodate parents who do not identify as Roman Catholic, but the ET schools now have a majority of children whose parents identify as Roman Catholic!!

Educate together doesn't discriminate, that's a major part of its ethos so it can't send Catholic kids away. Besides its not always the case that Catholic parents want their kids in a Catholic school. ET is not just a no faith formation school, it's entirely different to a lot of Catholic schools, no uniform, teachers called by their first name, no desks ( in my son's school they only use desks for writing ). Personally I don't think it's failed, its given parents like me a chance to have their child educated in a model that is similar to how we live at home. That wouldn't be an option in my local Catholic school.

iguana wrote: »

I've been thinking about this a lot since I became a parent and even more since Tuesday morning and the latest terrorist attack in Europe. Schools like Educate Together teach about religion rather than indoctrinate in a single religion but that really is just the lesser of two evils because they don't really teach about all religions. They essentially celebrate the best bits of all religions which is a really fun thing to do from a secular perspective. Hey kids, today is hanukkah, lets play with dreidel and see who can win the most chocolate coins while I teach a sanitised lesson about how hundreds of years ago Jews invented this game as a hidden way to teach their forbidden texts. Or today is Eid, lets eat these delicious ma'mools while I explain how the meat for the feast is distributed among the poor. All great, a little education and celebration of the beliefs of some of little Johnnie's classmates.

But from what I've heard from friends I know with children in ET schools there is very little education about the negative sides of religions. No real discussion of the pain caused to little baby boys during their Bris. No discussion of the horrible suffering experienced in the slaughter of animals for Halal meat. Very little discussion about the fact that you might be best buddies on the playground but your opposing religious beliefs mean your best friend is being told weekly that you deserve to burn in hell. Very little discussion about the deep abuses of power that religion allows. A discussion in the Limerick School Project about the Charlie Hebdo shootings had the school apologise to the 'outraged' family of a muslim pupil in the class.

That wasn't quite what happened though in that particular case. The school prides itself on it's recognition of diversity and so on, but whatever the teacher was thinking holding up the magazine in front of the class with the depiction of their prophet Muhammad on the cover, with two Muslim children in the class, and then the principal engages in arse covering mode talking about liberty and all the rest of it, that was bound to make an unfortunate error in judgement a whole lot worse.

Religion isn't taught about accurately because only the positive aspects can be gone into in real depth. The bad parts might be referenced on occasion but not in any real way because it can and likely will be deemed offensive. So we give credence to the absurd. We have a situation where instead of being able to respect that some people have religious belief. We have to respect the belief. Even if the belief is blatantly absurd when subjected to critical thought. Even when the belief damages the lives and health of the believer. Even when the belief damages the lives and health of the non-believer who is unlucky enough to be in a country where stupid beliefs have influenced the law.

Should religion be taught in schools? Absolutely. It has influenced too much of history and still influences too many aspects of today's world to be ignored. It's an important part of understanding how the world has come to be how it is, how it continues to be as it is and how the future may turn out. But that can no more be done by what I have seen being done in ET schools, than it can by indoctrination based schooling.

As I read your post, I was thinking you were putting forward an argument for religion being kept outside of the school walls, and that much I would have agreed with, in a State run school. I think the ET model has failed in trying to be all things to all people. It's just a mixed bag of ideologies and barely skimming the surface of each one. It was intended to accommodate parents who do not identify as Roman Catholic, but the ET schools now have a majority of children whose parents identify as Roman Catholic!!