Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bingo. And I hate saying it but liberal lefty virtue signalling is what the ET model is based upon - "we all love each other and we're all so diverse and accepting", until a Muslim immigrant turns up and it's "who invited you to the party?". There's still an awful lot of prejudice and suspicion among people who were fine being liberal, while their credentials were never tested. Suddenly they're looking more and more conservative because their ideology is under threat.

can you explain that one? I assume you dont mean Muslim kids in ET schools?
if its more a general point then the Muslim problem does make some people have to focus on things that could be taken for granted in the past. the previous assumption was that migrants would come and within a generation would adopt the values of the host country. Muslims have thrown a monkey wrench into that assumption

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's the problem I have with forced integration - it can't be done. Integration has to happen naturally. If people set up a society where everyone has what appears to an outsider to be as much freedom as they like, an outsider is going to want to be part of that. But when they get here they're being forced to fit in and they can't, so they self-segregate themselves into their own communities and keep themselves to themselves. That's how ghettoization happens. The US isn't so blind to culture as it might appear to be from the outside, and we're going the same way.

absolutely my view is its better not to let the numbers in if ghettoisation can occur. its a negative for the host society

Absolam wrote: »

I disagree, is the teacher not responsible for the students? Do the school not “respect all religions and none”? Or should respect only extend as far as their feelings about fish?
I didn't desconstruct the lesson, nor the teacher bring the magazine in. Seriously, did you acquaint yourself with any of the facts before you weighed in?
And as I said, I'm happy enough to stack what I judge to be of educational value against what you judge to be of educational value, but I think at this stage you can stop pretending your presumptions are supposedly based on what occurred, having demonstrated you didn't even bother to review the events reported.

I am more interested in the general idea of what constitutes offence in the classroom . the fact that it was a kid that brought in the mazagine is neither here nor there. once the teacher decided to present the material, its no different to a teacher bringing in the material themselves.

Walter H Price wrote: »

My point is why do schools run by the state staffed by teachers trained with and paid for by the tax payer have a religious ethos ? specifically one religion , its a joke.

I will happily teach my kids science and history outside school , i just don't see why class time is being wasted on a bunch of made up nonsense that has little or no meaning in the modern world , when they could be using the time to learn actual relevant subjects.

But the fact that you are a non believer isn't a good enough reason for the rest of us to follow suit,is it? I have respect for the real atheists out there who have nothing to do with religion. They pay their respects at funerals either in the funeral home or outside the church. Likewise with weddings they attend the reception not the service. I would not have much time for half hearted atheists who have their children baptised, make communion, confirmation, get married in church and generally find themselves in churches several times a year. Ask them why that is so and it will be a case of 'Oh I didn't want to offend my parents/peers/whatever or 'little Jeffrey would have been bullied'. It's time for some of ye guys to grow a pair.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that religion takes a back seat at secondary level? If anything it delves into religion in more depth than at primary level.

Personal experience, religion very much took a back seat for me, having discussed it with my peers back in college this doesn't appear to be an unusual experience.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The size of the nation is of course relevant in terms of resources allocated to education, and we are punching well above our weight internationally in terms of our output produced from the input by the State in education.

It's all relative though as a smaller nation there's less resources needed so mapping like for like with a larger nation size becomes irrelevant. We have good resources and use them well but the size of the nation doesn't really affect that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Saying that you want religious ethos schools removed from the patronage system is looking to change the education system.

I do not want religious ethos schools removed from the system.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can't remove religion from schools because the State does not fund the schools, it provides for the education of the nations children. Whoever provides that education, the State would still have to provide the funding for it. We don't pay for the schools, we pay for the education of the nations children. Those seeking a religious ethos education already are catering for it themselves. They pay taxes too!

Yes I said we all pay the taxes, that somehow doesn't exclude those of a religious faith. Again I do not encourage the removal of religion from schools. I encourage a system where the basis of education is in giving the child the core fundamentals needed to learn the skills needed and then a choice on religious ethos is given. The best way in my opinion to do this is for the state to fund and run core schools with no religious ethos and then for religions to run their own schools for the people of their faith with funding from the state.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The same as RC schools in Ireland then?

Yes, exactly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State isn't punishing anyone, and you can't have failed to miss the irony of the part in bold there when you were earlier suggesting that the correct approach is to remove religion from "State funded" schools? What's that if it's not punishing someone, oppressing them, and looking down your nose at them? You'd be doing the very same then if you were in a majority, and you'd have no problem suggesting anyone calling for their beliefs and values to be respected and provided for, is only whining.

Completely incorrect I may have worded my comments poorly but you are taking the extreme from what I said, I have full respect for other people and their beliefs and an in depth appreciation for the good that comes from a Catholic ethos learning environment and I would never want that to be oppressed nor was that what I was saying. I was simply saying it has its place outside of the core education of the children of Ireland, not that it should be eradicated.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are philosophy, art, music and drama quantifiable? No, but they are just as important a part of the curriculum as maths or history. Religion is an important part of the curriculum in religious ethos schools as any other subject, even more so than any other subjects.

I agree it's an important part to those of faith but again it's a belief based on blind faith and the idea that man cannot comprehend the nature of God which again is something I fully respect and again it's something that shouldn't be oppressed but needs to have its correct place in the education system where those who want their kids to be educated religiously have the choice to do so and those that do not not are not restricted in doing so.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll agree with you there, it was disrespectful, and unnecessary, and there's a lot of that about, unnecessary disrespect for those people who don't share your philosophy and values. I wonder if there's ever a compromise can be reached that would mean there would be no need for people to show an unnecessary disrespect for other people's philosophy and values?

Not in the short term, it takes humans a long time to adapt and become accepting, it is a shame because it's illogical not to respect what makes us all somewhat unique on our ways.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Didn't you just state in black and white that the correct thing for the State to do would be to remove religion from State funded schools? It's hardly unwarranted fear then, is it? You're not just asking to be catered for in the education system, you're demanding that the children who attend religious ethos schools be denied an education. You're punishing and oppressing children by denying them an education because you, who is in a minority, want the State to provide for only the type of education that suits a minority...

You do realise that there's a better chance of Jesus making a comeback before that's ever likely to happen?

State funded was an incorrect wording for me, as throughout this post I have tried and hopefully clarified my stance, I in no way wanted to give the impression that I want my beliefs to be catered for at the expense of the beliefs of others, I would only like to see the state provide better for those of no faith and indeed those of other faiths.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

No state schools, but as far as I'm aware some funding also comes from the church in the case of secondary schools anyway.

Maybe because demand is so exceptionally high they basically turn away all non-catholics automatically but I know for sure that even catholic families have to work very hard to get into many of the schools. As an example if the child hasn't served mass in their local church and the parents haven't been involved in some church events they might as well not bother applying to the better catholic schools as they will score badly in the points system used (this is all in addition to entrance exams etc). I can remember my relations working extremely hard and trying to get as many "points" as they could to enable their child go to the best school (which they did get into in the end). Now aside from wanting the best school they also very much wanted the education to be catholic ethos.

In high demand areas here in Ireland this occurs too I believe, Its understandable and I very much would like to see a situation in Ireland where Catholic ethos schools cater for those of a Catholic faith and don't have to cater for those of none or a different faith by the state giving the correct amount of resources to cater for this. I hope my post here has clarified my appreciation of your own beliefs and you understand I am not someone who would ever mock them.

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Personal experience, religion very much took a back seat for me, having discussed it with my peers back in college this doesn't appear to be an unusual experience.

My opinion isn't based upon my personal experience though, or that of my peers, that's anecdotal evidence, whereas I base my opinion on empirical evidence. It wouldn't be an unusual experience for your peers because by definition, your peers are those people with whom you share a commonality. In this case that commonality is the belief that religion takes a back seat in secondary level education. It really doesn't:

ETB second level schools illegally force students to take compulsory religion classes

(teachdontpreach, objective as always... not!)

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

It's all relative though as a smaller nation there's less resources needed so mapping like for like with a larger nation size becomes irrelevant. We have good resources and use them well but the size of the nation doesn't really affect that.

If as you say it's all relative, then mapping proportionately means the size of the nations populations is indeed irrelevant. We don't have anything like the proportionate resources of other countries, because we don't allocate as much funding to education as we should, in proportion to the amount allocated to education in other countries. Yet for the same ratio of resources being put into education, Ireland is demonstrating a vastly superior ratio of input vs output, than other countries.

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Yes I said we all pay the taxes, that somehow doesn't exclude those of a religious faith. Again I do not encourage the removal of religion from schools. I encourage a system where the basis of education is in giving the child the core fundamentals needed to learn the skills needed and then a choice on religious ethos is given. The best way in my opinion to do this is for the state to fund and run core schools with no religious ethos and then for religions to run their own schools for the people of their faith with funding from the state.

Well that sounds more like an idea I could get behind and support!

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Completely incorrect I may have worded my comments poorly but you are taking the extreme from what I said, I have full respect for other people and their beliefs and an in depth appreciation for the good that comes from a Catholic ethos learning environment and I would never want that to be oppressed nor was that what I was saying. I was simply saying it has its place outside of the core education of the children of Ireland, not that it should be eradicated.

I took the extreme from what you said, to demonstrate that people who oppose the teaching of religious ethos schools use that same argument, only with the perspectives reversed. Again when you say that the Catholic ethos learning environment has it's place outside the core education of the children of Ireland, there are people like myself who would disagree and tell you that for example my child is a child of Ireland, and from my perspective, a Catholic ethos is very much at the core of his education. You may need to be a little more specific.

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

I agree it's an important part to those of faith but again it's a belief based on blind faith and the idea that man cannot comprehend the nature of God which again is something I fully respect and again it's something that shouldn't be oppressed but needs to have its correct place in the education system where those who want their kids to be educated religiously have the choice to do so and those that do not not are not restricted in doing so.

We're back on track again. That's certainly an idea I can get behind as it's the basis of a secular education system, ie - not just secular schools within an education system, but the actual system itself, is secular.

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Not in the short term, it takes humans a long time to adapt and become accepting, it is a shame because it's illogical not to respect what makes us all somewhat unique on our ways.

I'd have a little more faith in humanity than that. Look how far we've come in less than a generation already - when I was growing up, corporal punishment was allowed in schools, it didn't become a criminal offence until 1996, spousal rape didn't become a criminal offence until 1990, suicide was decriminalised in 1993, as were homosexual acts, and even then marriage equality was but a distant dream. My point is that society is adapting all the time, it hasn't just stagnated, we're always progressing, faster now in the last few decades than at any other time in human civilisation.

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

State funded was an incorrect wording for me, as throughout this post I have tried and hopefully clarified my stance, I in no way wanted to give the impression that I want my beliefs to be catered for at the expense of the beliefs of others, I would only like to see the state provide better for those of no faith and indeed those of other faiths.

Yeah we're pretty much on the same page on that one, and even the RCC is geting in on the act, and progressing with the times, in spite of what you might have heard among your peers:


Catholic Primary Schools in a Changing Ireland - Sharing good Practice on Inclusion of All Pupils

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Not really correct, I didn't know anyone in the group of peers I mention until attending college, the only common factor among us all would be regional covering 5 counties in the north east region. The issue arose in a class and the discussion leaned towards religion being less of a factor in secondary education.

By this I mean the feeling was it is not as ingrained in secondary education as during primary education, while religion classes were still very much present and mandatory they were used for life lessons rather than education in the requirements of the religion.

Ahh! OK that's a different thing entirely, as in it's down to how the individual teacher in each case how they choose to impart the syllabus (or not, as appears to be the case in your experience and that of your peers). Just for, well, information really, there is actually a syllabus for religious education in secondary schools at both junior and senior cycle, and it can be taken as an examination subject if the student wishes to do so -

JUNIOR CERTIFICATE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SYLLABUS

LEAVING CERTIFICATE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SYLLABUS

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Indeed, the proportion of resources matter, not the size of the country or the population in itself. We punch above our weight thanks to the hard work of those in the education system who are under resourced.

Preaching to the choir! (metaphorically speaking at least ), but you're absolutely right - teachers do work hard in education and much of that education is imparted in religious ethos schools. In fact the majority of it is imparted in religious ethos schools! So they're definitely doing something right!

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

OK but I don't oppose the teaching of religious ethos schools only that it be a choice. What I mean by core is that a child needs education in certain subjects to function in society, a child will need language, math's, business, etc... its just a fact that to function in the society we have created core skills are needed. For me these types of subjects are the educational core that should be focused on. After these are taken care of then religious beliefs should be catered for (Without detriment to those beliefs of course).

Simply put I want the government to start focusing on an education system with choice at its core and not religion at its core.

That's not really the Government's call. There are a couple of different stakeholders involved in the development of the national curriculum at both primary and secondary level education, including but not limited to -


National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

Catholic Primary Schools Management Association

The Joint Managerial Body for School Management in Voluntary Secondary Schools

And loads, loads more! Suffice to say that everyone has their own ideas on how children should be educated to be able to function in todays society. Even Pope Frank manages to get his beak in when he approves of the religious education curriculum I linked to in my last post -

Holy See grants the Decree of Recognitio to the new Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland.

That's this one -

Catholic Primary Schools in a Changing Ireland - Sharing good Practice on Inclusion of All Pupils

Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland (2015)

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

Ireland is a good example of this but when you look worldwide there is much slower progress even in advanced countries. I share your belief that humanity will eventually get there but I believe it will take a long long time.

Truthfully, I'd be very dodgy about comparing Irish society to other societies as we're rather unique in a lot of ways, and those countries would have their own unique societies that are fit for their purposes. Are we as progressive in terms of education and child welfare as the Nordic countries? No, thankfully. They have some rather unusual ways of measuring progress anyway that simply couldn't be applied here. Are we as regressive as... ohh I don't know, pick a country? No, we're well ahead of the curve in terms of our education and child welfare policies. We have the 31st amendment to thank for that (lowest voter turnout for a referendum at 33%. Only the sixteenth amendment was lower at 29%, and that was a referendum to refuse bail to people who might be at risk of committing a serious offence while on bail!). We also have the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 to thank for improving the welfare, rights and protection of children in Ireland.

looksee wrote: »

One Eyed Jack

But are they doing something right because of or in spite of the ethos of the schools?

I think the quality of the education is not impacted positively or negatively by the fact that it is in a Catholic ethos school.

wokingvoter wrote: »

How do people who allege that too much time is spent on religion explain all the PHDs our education system has produced
My brother for example, not terribly clever at all, came up through the system, never got a grind, CBS all the way, not only plenty of religion but plenty of hurling too!
If you think about it almost every GP and solicitor in the country, all the high court judges etc all came through the system!
Opinions please!

The quality of Irish education is not in doubt. Do you think the curriculum is the preserve of Catholic schools? My daughter didn't do religion and is doing law now. That's down to her own hard work, good lay teachers and supportive family. The ethos of the school is irrelevant.

wokingvoter wrote: »

Your still going to stand right up there and promise that you will baptise them
In front of everybody
Including Granny

Cos there was never any hypocrisy in the Catholic church before was there?
No "celibate" priests with housekeepers sharing their beds - nor those same priests lecturing young engaged couples about the evils of sex before marriage for instance. I'd say if there was any smiting of hypocrites the day of the wedding the groom might not be the first one hit! :rolleyes:

wokingvoter wrote: »

That's whataboutery. Doesn't change the fact that uneccessarily telling lies on your wedding day in front of all your loved ones doesn't reflect well on your character

It's not whataboutery to point out that the catholic church only continues to function in large part thanks to hypocrisy at all levels. Picking one particular example to focus on in the way you have (nobody asked you to bring that in here after all) is just another example of that. Another example of "Christian" ethics in application : nasty, mean-minded and hypocritical.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is that not how wider society continues to function anyway? In large part thanks to hypocrisy at all levels? It seems redundant then to pick one particular example to focus on in the way you have done. I would suggest though that's just an example of human nature in action. Whether it's nasty, mean-minded and hypocritical, well, I'll leave that up to you to judge for yourself.

Let's just call a spade a spade then and admit that the Catholic faith is no longer what it used to be so let's have a country that reflects that.