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
If the parents decide they don’t want to educate their children in religious schools then there won’t be any.
But the situation we have is that parents do want to send their children to religious schools.
Some Protestant schools are overrun by Catholics and some Catholic schools are overrun by non-Catholics.
Lutherans, aethiests, Orthodox Christians etc. are attending Catholic schools in ever-growing numbers.
The situation is very fluid at the moment.
We also have an added problem regarding liability and who will pay for any legal claims etc.
We have a problem with the school boards being mono-religious but to solve this we first need to ensure that school boards don’t see themselves facing huge legal bills.
What we don’t have a problem with is the desire of many parents to be involved in the education of their children and all the talk of state-run education here is simply wishful thinking on the part of a very small minority.
Why hasn’t a single party in the Republic suggested the idea? Because it’s a non-runner.
Don’t know what the feeling is up north.
Posted by on Aug 28, 2007 @ 07:45 PM**I’m saying that the state should be the exclusive provider of education**
You don’t really mean that do you Garibaldy?
I follow your point about the state providing a solely secular education but are you seriously suggesting that the state and only the state should provide education and anyone who wished to provide an alternative to the state monopoly should be banned? That’s a bit North Korean don’t you think?
**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.**
You clearly have not followed political debate in either France or the US in recent years if you think the issue of church and state seperation has been calmly resolved. It is a huge political hot potato in both societies and indeed is perhaps one of the key issues that predominates in political debates.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 03:52 AMIn answer to the question posed in the header to this piece, I would say the Republic is a post-religious state. However, the huge hole left in society (and people’s lives) by the demise of the Catholic Church is now being filled by a dutiful observance of Green rituals and peities which is on the rise in the Republic.
Indeed, the good showing of the Green Cult party in the last elections, and their admission into government shows that state and this new church are as inextricably linked as the old Catholic Church/Free State model under Eamon De Valera.
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 10:14 AM“Indeed, the good showing of the Green Cult party in the last elections, and their admission into government shows that state and this new church are as inextricably linked as the old Catholic Church/Free State model under Eamon De Valera.”
Interesting thesis, but how does it show that it is “inextricably linked”? Did Germany worship at this Church under Schröder?
Posted by on Aug 29, 2007 @ 10:58 AM90% of primary schools are catholic owned and run, that unconstitutional because it leaves parents with no choice,people keep saying they choose to do so they don’t, there is no choice, the state are to this day actively hampering attempts to set up secular schools. its a disgrace that its being ignored by successive governments, its disappointing nobodies taken a case to court against the government.
I believe all the schools should be taken of the church and put in multi-rep trusts in lieu of the payment due on child abuse.
btw is NI run by a priest?
Posted by on Aug 30, 2007 @ 04:45 AMReligious interest has plummeted in the RoI, compared to years ago when it was all we had. People have realized that they can live on mammon alone without god. Anyway those that do attend mass and label themselves Roman Catholic would morelikely be the liberal sort, the ‘a la carte’ catholic who picks whatever appeals to them that suits their style of living. Such people could be described as Protestants in a way. The present popes dogma harking back to the middle ages is not everyones cup of tea in the RoI today, and infact Roman Catholic canon law (ie transubstantiation etc...) was never really fully understood by the Irish populace.
Posted by on Aug 31, 2007 @ 08:40 AM
