A guy in Dublin wants state schools to be more accommodating to Islam, according to the Irish Times.
It goes wrong right in the first sentence.
A spokesman for the Muslim community in Ireland has called for radical change in the educational system to accommodate children with Islamic beliefs.
There is no “spokesman for the Muslim community in Ireland.” That’s not a thing. The guy wrote a book; that doesn’t make him a spokesman, and you couldn’t have “a spokesman for the Muslim community in Ireland” if you wanted to, because there’s no procedure for electing one.
But anyway…
Dr Ali Selim, of the Islamic Cultural Centre in Dublin’s Clonskeagh and a lecturer in the Mater Dei Institute and Trinity College, has called for “a revolution of inclusivity” in Irish schools and “an upheaval in Irish educational perspectives”.
This was necessary to accommodate the needs of a society which is now “home to a variety of Christian denominations, as well as people of other faiths and of none”, he says in his book Islam and Education in Ireland, to be published next week.
So the schools should be secular, and thus inclusive to everyone, of every religion and none.
Estimating that of approximately 65,000 Muslims in Ireland today as many as 20,000 would be in the under-18 school-going age, he relates difficulties these young people face when it comes to admission to schools, as well as their problems with PE classes, relationship and sexuality education, music and drama classes, and practice of their faith during school hours.
Do they? Or does Dr Selim just think they ought to?
He then sensibly objects to the Catholic monopoly in many state schools.
This continued despite a prohibition of discrimination on religion grounds by all recent Equal Status Acts, he says and quotes the example of a Catholic boys’ secondary school in Dublin that says in its policy statement: “Non-Catholic enrolment will only be considered in the event of being undersubscribed.”
That’s revolting in a state school, no question.
He suggests there is “a clash of values” also between Islam and “traditional ways of teaching PE”. In some schools, “under the guise of health and safety, Muslim girls are obliged to take off their headscarves for PE classes, which is not acceptable to them”.
Where schools were “persistent”, they should “employ a female PE teacher and provide students with a sports hall not accessible to men during times when girls are at play. They should also not be visible to men while at play.”
Dr Selim sounds like someone who should get his mind out of the gutter.
“A spokesman for the Muslim community” basically just means “the Muslim who shouts the loudest.”
Yeah, we men really are pathetically weak-willed. One flash of a naked knee, and we all turn into giant penises who are incapable of rational behavior. Why doesn’t Dr. Selim just advocate for locking up all the guys? That would surely be the most logical way to deal with us.
Why should any public school system anywhere, make any provisions for the religious superstitions of some of its students?
“Inclusivity” usually means accommodation and partial Islamisation. Whether or not Selim is a certified spokesman for the Muslim community is not the question, since sexual segregation and the hijab are religious requirements, most observant Muslims would agree with him. It’s a mistake to assume that people like Selim don’t necessarily represent majority Muslim views, anyone who is sceptical should refer to the numerous Pew surveys on Islamic attitudes to democracy and secularism.
Because if they do not parents may not allow children to use the public school system. We allow the irreligious superstitions and prejudices of society to affect the way schools are run, so it is reasonable to consider and allow for religious superstitions too. After all, some religious ‘superstitions’ are shared for nonreligious reasons by others- the demand that schools ‘should “employ a female PE teacher and provide students with a sports hall not accessible to men during times when girls are [using it]. They should also not be visible to men.”’ is one that many nonmuslims would agree with or accept.
@4 sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d
(1) “Because if they do not parents may not allow children to use the public school system.”
Why is that a justification for compromising the integrity of any secular education system?
(2) “We allow the irreligious superstitions and prejudices of society to affect the way schools are run, so it is reasonable to consider and allow for religious superstitions too.”
If that is indeed the case, why is it ‘reasonable’ to include more of those beliefs and prejudices? That’s a sweeping generalisation, some examples of those “irreligious superstitions and prejudices” would be useful.
(3) “it is reasonable to consider and allow for religious superstitions too.” The question is to what extent, which and whose, superstitions, or prejudices should have priority?
Would you agree with sexual segregation for Muslims in public schools, or for any other religious individuals?
Some religious practices might, coincidentally, have some social utility and be generally acceptable, however that’s not a justification for accommodating Islam, or any other religious ideology, in a secular education system.
It depends on whether you consider the integrity of a secular education system more important than whether children are educated in it. For example, in a secular education system children certainly would not be obliged to pray- or pretend to pray- but would they be entitled or allowed to pray or to leave the schools’ premises to pray if there is nowhere where they can pray on those premises? At what age would parents be prevented from making their children pray? Allowing any of these are compromises with a system’s integrity, but people can disagree over just how important they are compared with the education system’s general purpose, which is to educate children.
Our very belief in the kind of egalitarian society most seculaists favour and the importance of education is a kind of superstition. Secularism and egalitarianism are not inherently connected, as some of our odder fellow-seculairsts show,even though most secularists are egalitarians.
Nor is the fact that practises are put forward for religious reasons a justification for excluding them. The specific example I cited – the demand that schools ‘should “employ a female PE teacher and provide students with a sports hall not accessible to men during times when girls are [using it]. They should also not be visible to men.”- is one which some irreligious people also support. The fact that it would also avoid debate over how pupils dress and whether pupils are obliged or entitled to wear headscarves in the presence of men- a lesser question than whether they receive an education and exercise- is also useful.
Estimating that of approximately 65,000 Muslims in Ireland today as many as 20,000 would be in the under-18 school-going age, he relates difficulties these young people face when it comes to admission to schools, as well as their problems with PE classes, relationship and sexuality education, music and drama classes, and practice of their faith during school hours.
In England and Wales 390,127 people listed “Jedi” on their 2001 census.
Your move, Dr Selim.