Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Is the Republic a secular or a religious state?
Turkey is scene of some of the most explicit tensions between a jealously secular republic and its post Islamist government (Morning Ireland). But, however faint, there may be similar echoes in the Irish Republic. Indeed, Conor Lenihan was somewhat stumped when when after asserting that Sikh Garda officers could not wear their turbans because they could not display religious symbols, Will Crawley asked whether such a ban should not also apply to crucifixes and crosses? It’s a theme ably followed up by Fintan O’Toole in today’s Irish Times:
For my own part, I do not think Sikh officers should be allowed to wear turbans, or Muslim officers allowed to wear hijabs. I entirely agree with Garda spokesman Kevin Donohue when he says that “the person standing in front of you should be representative of the police force - not a Sikh police officer, not a Catholic police officer, not a Jewish police officer”.
Such a stance can be hard on Sikhs and members of other faiths, but it is the only way to avoid a Balkanisation of State services, not just in the Garda or Army, but in schools, hospitals, the Dáil and the courts. The preservation of a public realm that everyone enters equally as a citizen is a value of greater importance than any individual’s right to express a personal identity while performing a State service.
The problem is that this State has absolutely no right to take such a stance. So long as we refuse even to discuss a non-sectarian education system, so long as we evoke a specific religious belief system in every aspect of our system of governance, we have no right to tell anyone that they have to keep their religion separate from their public function. Unless we are to practise naked discrimination, the logic of our current system is that our police officers can wear turbans, hijabs or Jedi light sabres - anything that is required by their faith. We also have to provide a range of religious schools in every community, all paid for by the taxpayer. We have to start Dáil sessions not with one prayer, but with at least 25 - one for each of the main religious groupings in the State - and with an atheist evocation of humanist principles.
Or we could just cop on to ourselves and start creating a public realm in which all religions are respected because none is invoked.
Mick Fealty @ 08:32 AM
George,
I read that part. Let’s look at this bit from 42.1 “parents to provide, according to their means”. It does it seems to me allow parents the right to provide for a religious education if they can. It does not say the state must pay for it, but that the state must provide primary education. That that education must be religious is not specified.
Kensei,
Society already regulates people’s relgious freedoms in order to protect societal cohesion. And it does ban certain types of religion it sees as harmful to society. The best example being of course human sacrifice, but extending also to polygamy etc. Or, in our own local context, people walking to and from religious service where others don’t want them walking. Therefore there is plenty of precedent to prohibit religion from having a role in education.
Of course I don’t want religion banned. I’d even be happy to see, preferably as a transitional move but permanently if necessary, religious education classes according to denomination within schools that are integrated and run by the state. But religion is a personal matter. If it’s that important to people, let them spend the hour a day or less people get in religious education in scools inculcating at home, or at religious instruction run by the denominations for their members within their churches/mosques/synagogues etc.
Education should be secular. The state should not support any type of religion.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:29 AMwell i feared this blog would turn into a religion bashing thread, but lets try and not let it,
as for thoses preaching against catholic education, i see no reasons fro the removal of it, as all its schools are open to anyone to join, religion class maybe be the only thing they be left out on,
otherwise they are great schools, especially since its the catholic schools that are always producing the best marks when it comes to exams,
there is no evil in teaching religion in schools as far as i know, and im sure people can be brought into schools to teach other faiths as well
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:37 AMNobody’s bashing religion. Nor am I bashing Catholic education. I’m saying that the state should be the exclusive provider of education, and that education should be secular. As in fact should be the entire edifice of the state.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:41 AM...there’s still a way to go to full secularization. Non-denominational/multi-denominational alternatives still continue to flourish, because the perceived and often real embedded culture of Catholic intolerance/prejudice has not been adequately explored or addressed. There needs to be a new management system put in place to once and for all banish the old inquisitorial mindset.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 11:52 AMWednesday, come on - it’s not all that bad! I’m as happy to have been educated in a school that had an “ethos” than one that was a flimsy state hole. It gives a rounder education that is an essential part of the Irish education system that is very difficult for a state school to emulate.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 12:05 PMThe question is not whether the republic is secular or not; it is, or should be, whether it is a republic or not. Republicanism anywhere outside Ireland is a theory of governemnt, a defining characteristic of which is the separation of Church and State. The republic here has signally failed to take this characteristic on. Instead, Irish Republicanism has been consumed by what is, in reality, a nationalist question - the (re-)unification of the island. True, the population of the republic has become increasingly secular, but the institutions of the state have not even attempted to keep pace. I agree, as I generally do, with O’Toole’s reading of the issues, but I accept that I also fail to be consistent - I would love to see the Garda and defence forces prevented from any displays of catholicism, and yet I would happily allow a Sikh garda to wear a turban.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 12:10 PMGaribaldy,
of course there is no requirement for religion but if the parents choose to send their child to a religious school....That is why, for example, the Islamic school in Clonskeagh is state-funded. Obviously they would then have to provide Irish classes etc.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 12:14 PM“Turkey is scene of some of the most explicit tensions between a jealously secular republic and its post Islamist government (Morning Ireland). “
Mick
What the hell is a post islamic government, the terminology is nonsensical unless Islam in Turkey had been abolished. The governing party in Turkey the AK Party is a democratic islamic party, get used to it, call it what it is. The only reason you dress it up in pretty ribbons is because you are unable to see that an islamic party can be both islamic and democratic. To you all islamic parties are like the lunatic bin Laden. Or is it because Ak is pro capitalists so you have to find another terminology to justify doing business with it.By the way say what you will about the Turkish generals, but petty jealously is not one of there motivating factors. Believe it or not most of them genuinely believe the secular state is the best thing for Turkey and its people, and in truth history has proved them right on more than one occasion.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 12:23 PM“Did you read what I wrote? I said the Church should pay for it.”
Yes. In the real world, that translates into me paying for it through collections at the parish.
“It is if my taxes are paying for it.”
Ah, so only your taxes get to make up policy and mine don’t count?
I don’t want to pay for an army therefore there shouldn’t be one.
I have private health insurance why should my taxes pay for public hospitals.
Etc, etc etc.
“Agreed. But those solutions aren’t likely to be implemented while the Church retains its stranglehold on the education system.”
So nuke ‘em. Great.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 12:25 PMThe Catholic Church has no requirement that members of its laity dress in any way such as to identify their faith or requirements to adorn themselves with religious symbols so it would not be an infringement of a Catholic’s faith choice (or those of other Christian sects so far as I am aware) to ask that they not wear any such symbols during their time at work and particilarly if they are required to wear a singular uniform which identifies them as a servant of the state. So no impediment is set up by the state against their being a Catholic and performing as a state servant.
For a Sikh however it is a requirement of the cultural tradition of his religion that a man wear a turban to encase his hair which his religion insists must remain uncut. To deny a Sikh the right to wear his turban therefore is to deny a Sikh admission to the ranks of the Gardai because he is a Sikh and that is discriminatory and ought to be, in my opinion, intolerable in an open, inclusive society.
Besides which, who could possibly be offended? There is no record or history of Sikh wrongdoings in Ireland. My only experience of Sikhs until I came to Britain, was that they were the only “black” men I had ever seen and they went door to door with large leather suitcases from which they sold brushes and cleaning materials and dazzled all our mothers with their charm and bright smiles. I thought the turbans were pretty “cool”.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 12:42 PMOilifĂ©ar, I see absolutely no reason to make the assumption you’re making, that the state is incapable of providing an education equal to that provided by the Church. Of course it can do so if the effort is made.
As for you Kensei -
In the real world, that translates into me paying for it through collections at the parish.
Please. It wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference to the Catholic Church if you stopped your donations. We are talking about one of the world’s wealthiest organisations, after all. And it didn’t amass all that wealth by passing the plate to ordinary parishioners during services.
so only your taxes get to make up policy and mine don’t count?
Again, that is not what I said. I said that it is my business where my taxes go. You’re free to argue, of course, that there are certain things you don’t want your taxes going to either, and I suspect that if I were to trawl the Slugger archives I’d eventually find you doing just that, but I can’t really be arsed. My point is simply that it’s ludicrous to claim that it’s “none of my business” how public funding is spent.
I won’t even bother replying to your last comment, for reasons too obvious to mention.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 12:45 PMI see no problem allowing religious symbols to be worn, providing they are discreet. For example, wedding rings are religious symbols with profound significance within religious betrothal ceremonies, not non-secular items of jewellery signifying only non-denominational civic marriages. Telling Gardia to remove their rings because some zealot belief in a non-secular state is an abuse of the state’s power to the detriment of the individual. It is plainly stupid to start equating pioneer pins, crucifixes, wedding rings, etc, with turbans and hijabs (or any religion that requires its followers to observe nakedness at all times). Still, journalists are paid to be stupid, so as long as they confine their beliefs to the print of newspapers and not the print of government legislation, who cares?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:11 PMWednesday, the reason I think so is from observation around my own town. It should be plainly obvious that the religiously-inclined have an “ethos” - be they Mercy, De La Salle, Church of Ireland, Jewish or Islamic. That is a very difficult thing to start up from scratch - not impossible, but very difficult. It’s a quality of a school that can be passed down through generations of principals, and even, eventually, or so I hope, into the hands of the community. With it in place, whether they worship a different spaghetti monster or none, it’s a quality that is beneficial to the pupils of the school.
State schools (as distinct from community schools inherited from religious orders) would be fine, but they would need an equally heavy clout of “ethos"/ideology. I don’t know where that would come from. I don’t doubt that it would be impossible, but it would require a great deal of work to nurture, and maybe now’s the time to start planning it.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 01:11 PM>To deny a Sikh the right to wear his turban therefore is to deny a Sikh admission to the ranks of the Gardai because he is a Sikh and that is discriminatory and ought to be, in my opinion, intolerable in an open, inclusive society.<<
Can Sikh’s become firemen? Would the wearing of a turban prohibit them from entering burning buildings, rescuing cats etc?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:46 PMSo are people advocating increased taxes to pay for the land and building of new schools ?
Or are you advocating the forced theft of Catholic premises ?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 02:55 PMIreland offically is still catholic country, and still has a state-church, that i dont have a problem with, since the church has lots most of its power over the government anyway, i.e. divorce and all that jazz,
it isnt the worst religion or church to set ur moral views by, its been teaching our young people to respect eachother and try and live good life, not a bad message, and as long as we stick to that, why seperate,
but i would seperate church and state, to make others feel welcome in ireland, but i would seperate faith and state, id still support catholic views on things like abortion!
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 03:28 PMState schools (as distinct from community schools inherited from religious orders) would be fine, but they would need an equally heavy clout of “ethos"/ideology.
Erm, why?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 03:29 PMErm, for the reasons I outline above?
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 03:32 PMI think your reasoning is circular, OilifĂ©ar. Ethos is good because it is. I’m not even sure exactly what you’re defining as ethos, if it’s not religious. Unless you’re talking about some sort of civic pride, and I certainly don’t think that’s beyond the capability of a secular state system.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 03:48 PMEthos is good, yes. Civic pride - yeah, that’s the same kind of thing. What I mean are the kind of “life principles” that come not as part of the formal education of a school, but as part of a school’s culture. Religious groups have these built-in from the start, but they do not have a monopoly on them. Many civic and charatable groups are driven by “priciples” of this kind and in the past many of these founded schools, and those schools carry with them those same principles right down to this very day. This “ethos” (or whatever you would like to call it) is a good thing for kids and a good quality for any school to possess.
What I wrote about “ethos” was that, “That is a very difficult thing to start up from scratch - not impossible, but very difficult.”
For such an ethos to be built in state schools, one that, like the ethos in relgious schools, can transcend generations of pricipals and not be the willy-nilly whim of transitory staff, I wrote: “I don’t doubt that it would be <srike>impossible</strike> possible, but it would require a great deal of work to nurture, and maybe now’s the time to start planning it.” (Sorry, typo first time around.)
What kind of “ethos” (appologies for the word) would you propose that state schools have. How can it be nurtured? Should it be uniform or are there way to encourage various types of state schools with differeing ethoses? Or, do you think that it’s necessary, or even desirable. Or would you be happy to leave it to each principals to sort out on their own?
(I have, by the way, made a difference between state schools and community schools. Maybe you don’t, I can see why, but from the point of view of “ethos” my experience is that community schools inherit the ethos of the ‘previous tenant’.)
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 04:26 PMThis “ethos” (or whatever you would like to call it) is a good thing for kids and a good quality for any school to possess.
You keep saying this, but you still haven’t explained why you think it’s such a good thing for kids and for the school (other than because it is. Apparently. For reasons still unclear to me.)
For the sake of argument, though, and since you accept that a sort of civic pride would suffice, then I suppose the state could set up a commission of various pillars of civic society to come up with a proposal. I’m not going to draw this idea out any further though as I remain unconvinced of its necessity.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 05:10 PMIreland is not the only Republic in the world although reading some of he posts some think it is.
Can we not learn from the experiences of others particularly France and USA where this debate of Church and State has been settled and does not give rise to such high emotions when we are only starting the debate.Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 06:04 PMGaribaldy: “Nobody’s bashing religion. Nor am I bashing Catholic education. I’m saying that the state should be the exclusive provider of education, and that education should be secular. As in fact should be the entire edifice of the state. As in fact should be the entire edifice of the state.”
Of course… then, while we’re at it, we can have a state-sponsored Youth movement, along with some spiffy uniforms!
There are dangers in a solely state-centric education, shorn of any ideals…
Gram: “Can Sikh’s become firemen? Would the wearing of a turban prohibit them from entering burning buildings, rescuing cats etc? “
Arguably, yes, for safety reasons—the beard and long hair can prevent obtaining a good seal between the breathing apparatus and the face.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 06:42 PMLeaving the specific matter of the Catholic Church out of this, the idea that religious groupings should be entitled to funding from the state is one which is frought with problems. Arguing for mainstream religions is one thing, but access to religious funding means that other religions such as crackpot fundies, Jehovah “Blood Transfusions are Evil” Witnesses, LDS “Jesus was from outer space” types, Satanists and Scientologists are all entitled to funding as well, on an equal basis. This is why the state should have nothing to do with religion in any way other than to ensure that people’s rights of worship are upheld.
Regarding the specific matter of the Catholic Church, the idea that an unelected group of people with a long history of physical abuse, and indeed child abuse, together with a history of trying to cover up said abuse, should be responsible for the education of children doesn’t seem right.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 07:14 PMComrade stalin,
would u be more cofortable letting ur chuldren be taught by other non-relioius teachers, who have a long history of child abuse, and covering it up through fear,
are yyou confortable going to hospitals that have a long history of stealing dead peoples organs and storing them without informing the family?
are you comfortable being protected by police with a long history of murder and abuse?
would you rather support Sinn Fein, with a past of murder on this new government past, rather than the SDLP who have been the only party to preach the path for 30+ years (this one may not apply to u)
everyone has dark pasts, dont group all people together because of uniform or title!
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 07:33 PM
