philstar wrote: » are you sure its not the archbishop of canterbury??
robindch wrote: » I'm not sure the RCC wasn't beyond using religion to do exactly the same thing itself.
catbear wrote: » [...] invaders used religion to dispossess and persecute their ancestors [...]
philstar wrote: » the thing is this... Irish nationalism and Catholicism goes hand in hand the two are tightly intertwined its to do with our tribalistic past, the whole catholic vs protestant thingy its embedded in the irish psyche
lazygal wrote: » There's a non religious Montessori near me. Refused to be religious or multid so it's entirely private and not part of the primary school network.
Christy42 wrote: » Oh right that rule. Why is it relevant to this? Kids still get their religious education as before except now there is an easy opt out. Pretty sure few schools went all out on the religious spirit outside of religion time so it should make no odds to their education.
Absolam wrote: » Actually, the rule was that "A religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school"; Christy42 brought that up earlier. Nor have I heard that anyone was prevented from receiving State money to pay for it if it didn't, have you? Still... the point would be that those who felt it was a barrier to schools that had no intention of having a religious spirit inform and vivify the whole work of the school need no longer feel that way..so the repeal of rule 68 makes some ****ing difference to them, eh?
lazygal wrote: » There's a non religious Montessori near me. Refused to be religious or multid so it's entirely private and not part of the primary school network. Sure why would I bother giving you information. You'll proceed in the usual Gish gallop manner to deliberately drag a discussion into tedious argument. So use as many smiles as you want in response. I think the limit is 15.
lazygal wrote: » No one was prevented from opening any sort of school. Only from receiving state money to pay for it if it didn't inform and vivify the school day with religion.
Absolam wrote: » You don't think it makes a difference to everyone who thought it prevented people from opening secular schools?
Absolam wrote: » Why would you think they're not doing it now? Up until recently it was a rule that they must; they can't all have been breaking that rule can they? So in fact asking them not to do it would be a new suggestion and different to the current status quo.
Christy42 wrote: » Irrelevant if they aren't doing it now this won't change that. Giving it that spirit would be a new suggestion and different to the current status quo.
Ohbethehokey wrote: » [...] But sure you're out working so not there to be helping. [...] Their wish to remain in thier own home takes precedence over your child's well being. You are going to indoctorine your child for their entire life in something you strongly disagree with so a relative can live at home until they die? [...] I don't want to personalise it [...] but the mental gymnastics are fascinating
Absolam wrote: » Schools aren't obliged to; that doesn't mean that religious parents might not want them to, does it?
lazygal wrote: » But Rule 68 has been dropped. Schools no longer need to vivify the day with anything, even a religious spirit.
Absolam wrote: » If you're prepared to bet there's one parents would complain about, why would you say everyone has what they want? You obviously don't think so. Not religion, a religious spirit. But you make the point well; if you don't know what it is you're not likely to come up with a way of delivering it, are you?
Christy42 wrote: » No idea what having religion inform the school day actually means.
Absolam wrote: » Not religion, a religious spirit.
Christy42 wrote: » The school day could be shortened to compensate. I am just putting religion at the end of the day giving non religious parents a chance to take their kids home before it. Would bet a lot of money that this is the one parents would complain about.
Christy42 wrote: » No idea what having religion inform the school day actually means. And that is from someone who went to a Christian brothers school with varying degrees of religious teachers.
Absolam wrote: » Sure they would; religion would no longer be part of the school day, so they'd have to have longer hours, and a religious spirit would no longer inform and vivify the school day. They might let one slide, but probably not the other. Substituting one solution not everyone wants for another solution not every wants, isn't actually a solution though is it? Nor yet, what you claimed; 'everyone has what they want'.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » There is no reason that any person should accept being discriminated against on the basis of religion.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The state should be strictly neutral with regard to religion.
unseenfootage wrote: » I'd say the vast majority of Muslim countries have secular governments and hence they have secular education.
