Church Weddings

Tim Robbins

InFront wrote:

How many Muslims and Jews do you know have baptised their children as Christians to get them an education?

Very few of the overall Muslim children population go to the Clonskeagh School, and as far as I know there is no Jewish primary school. I don't buy the idea that atheists are genuinely forced into baptising their children as Christians. I'm not saying that the educational system works well here, but in fairness it shouldn't be exaggerated either.

What happens is that most schools have an admission policy, whereby they state who they give preference to. It is usually by Religion.
A lot of schools can accomodate a minority Religion but they are not obliged to.

aidan24326

I don't expect I'll get married in a church. My girlfriend is no more a practising catholic than I am, but I'd say a part of her would probably like the whole big church wedding thing, though she knows it would be somewhat hypocritical and it's not a big thing for her. I certainly wouldn't do it just to appease family/friends/others, if they don't want to come to my civil wedding then fine, don't come. Thankfully I wouldn't envisage a major problem here. The majority would be ok with it and one of my cousins already had a civil ceremony last year, no church. He had it in a hotel that also has civil ceremony facilities on site.

The whole baptism issue is a thorny one for me. Ideally no, but a child's education has to come first. I think it's outrageous at this day and age that you may have to baptise your child just to get them into a school. Utterly ludicrous and a clear indication that we're a long way from being a secular state. I'd go through the motions if it were really necessary but would make a point of inviting nobody other than the required two witnesses.

Tar.Aldarion

Jakkass wrote:

Well thats what the principle of marriage is in the Christian church. When a man and a woman come to be as one in the presence of God. I always thought that was the understanding behind it anyway.

Well is god not present everywhere?

InFront

Tim Robbins wrote:

What happens is that most schools have an admission policy, whereby they state who they give preference to. It is usually by Religion.
A lot of schools can accomodate a minority Religion but they are not obliged to.

I understand very well what happens when you want to send children to a Catholic primary school, I'm just saying that this idea of being forced to baptise your child a Catholic is rubbish.
While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to), they don't tend to have a shopping list of those outside their particular religion beyond obviously preferring other Christians. To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.
Muslims and Jews don't suffer this forced conversion, I can't see why some atheists imagine they do.

Dades

InFront, let me give you an example.

Last year was the first year in the history of the school I went to, that the entire 1st class contingent were sons of past pupils. No doubt there were other past pupils sons who couldn't get in. With competition like that, I don't think I'd risk not submitting a baptismal cert with my hypothetical son's application form.

Bottle_of_Smoke

InFront wrote:

I understand very well what happens when you want to send children to a Catholic primary school, I'm just saying that this idea of being forced to baptise your child a Catholic is rubbish.
While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to), they don't tend to have a shopping list of those outside their particular religion beyond obviously preferring other Christians. To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.
Muslims and Jews don't suffer this forced conversion, I can't see why some atheists imagine they do.

If you're a Muslim or a Jew you're not going to convert because your faith means something to you. If you're an Athiest it doesn't mean anything to you, it's just an absence of a belief in religion.

So as an Athiest you have a choice between "baptise so your child has a better chance of education" "don't baptise & more hassle getting child learned"

Athiests feel they shouldn't have to do this. People aren't being completely literal when they say forced for this situation.

InFront

The Atheist wrote:

Last year was the first year in the history of the school I went to, that the entire 1st class contingent were sons of past pupils. No doubt there were other past pupils sons who couldn't get in. With competition like that, I don't think I'd risk not submitting a baptismal cert with my hypothetical son's application form.

It's clearly a religious school. You do have other choices, you will get your kids into other (Catholic) schools without having to baptise them, it depends on the school, and the most it's going to mean is probably driving a bit out of your way to get there.
If baptism doesn't mean anything to you, and you do it even when you don't need to, that's fine, just please don't grumble about it as though it were some sort of religous persecution that one is forced into.

People aren't being completely literal when they say forced for this situation.

Yes it would seem that way, but I'm not sure what the point of complaining is when it is optional or youre just doing it to make life easier.

Sangre

I can't name one non-demoninational school in my area. Which means they are either non-existant or aren't very good.

5uspect

It seems that the views of atheists are not worth the same respect as the faithful? Its a simple fact that the vast majority of schools in this country are run under a Christian (shiver, here comes the dirty word) ethos. For a school to favour children from any religous families before non religous families is clear discrimination.

Tim Robbins

InFront wrote:

I understand very well what happens when you want to send children to a Catholic primary school, I'm just saying that this idea of being forced to baptise your child a Catholic is rubbish.
While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to), they don't tend to have a shopping list of those outside their particular religion beyond obviously preferring other Christians. To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.
Muslims and Jews don't suffer this forced conversion, I can't see why some atheists imagine they do.

They are not forced to. The probability of the kid getting in depends on whether they have been baptized or not. That's the inescapable fact.

robindch

InFront wrote:

While they do tend to have a policy of giving preference to kids of their own religion (and as a religious school, it would be pretty stupid not to),

Huh? Public schools in Ireland are funded from central government funds, but the catholic church oversees around 93% of them, with another 5% or so run by the CofI. The Catholic and CofI churches, in accordance with the Equal Status Act, 2000 (see the legislation here), are permitted to reject a child's application if the religious body running the school feels that the applicant is the wrong religion. No other grounds are necessary and the church concerned does not have to give a reason, or justify its action in any way. Just a simple rejection slip.

This isn't just unethical, this is a bloody disgrace. BTW, in the light of the recent Diswellstown mess, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has demanded that the current system of religious oversight be changed. More power to him! (and it's not often that I say that )

InFront wrote:

To suggest otherwise is false, and to suggest that parents are being genuinely forced into baptising their kids is also false.

Completely wrong -- my brother knows more than a few who've turned into (CofI) church-going citizens from gallivanting heathen, to say nothing of the kids who've been dipped.

InFront

robindch wrote:

but the catholic church oversees around 93% of them

Where you have written "oversees", try "owns". These are their schools. They do not belong to you. The Government can fund them until the end of the world, until there's a purchase agreement they'll never own them, nor dictate ethos and admissions policy.

the church concerned does not have to give a reason, or justify its action in any way... this is a bloody disgrace.

No, it isn't. It's their school they can do what they want. They are under no obligation to abandon their ethos or their fellow believers for the sake of others. The Government funds them in full knowledge of what their policy is.
I don't know what kind of religion would refuse its own followers an education before non believers, don't you think it's top be expected? As someone who received a fair bit of his education in a Christian ethos school, I think the Christians actually go quite far in facilitating those who do not submit to their beliefs in terms of education and resources.

Dades

InFront wrote:

Where you have written "oversees", try "owns". These are their schools. They do not belong to you. The Government can fund them until the end of the world, until there's a purchase agreement they'll never own them, nor dictate ethos and admissions policy.
No, it isn't. It's their school they can do what they want. They are under no obligation to abandon their ethos or their fellow believers for the sake of others. The Government funds them in full knowledge of what their policy is.

If you accept that our taxpayers money is funding this, then why are you asking why non-believers are complaining about having to get their children 'dipped'?

BTW don't mention the "E" word to Robin - he might get mad.

InFront

The Atheist wrote:

If you accept that our taxpayers money is funding this, then why are you asking why non-believers are complaining about having to get their children 'dipped'?

But they don't "have to", that simply isn't true. This thing of forced baptisms is a complete myth. You're no different to Muslim and Jewish and Hindu parents in this regard.
There's nothing wrong with complaining about where your tax goes or what the Government spends it on. Everyone does that to some extent. What I'm saying is that you don't actually "have to" get a child dipped or baptised (or do anything religious with it) to get it an education, and that any given taxpayer doesnt really have any say in who a private school - i.e. a religiously owned school - chooses to admit among its pupils anyway since that is not the condition of a school's funding.

BTW don't mention the "E" word to Robin - he might get mad.

Ethos? Then I'm not sure what he's doing using the word 'unethical' in his last post.

Dades

InFront wrote:

But they don't "have to", that simply isn't true. This thing of forced baptisms is a complete myth. You're no different to Muslim and Jewish and Hindu parents in this regard.

You don't "have to" in the same way you don't "have to" wear pants to a job interview. But it helps. The point is simply that you don't get a fair shot at your choice of educational facility unless your child is dipped. And that goes for Muslims, Jews & Hindus too if they were so inclined to send their kids to a RC school - i.e. the vast majority of schools.

InFront wrote:

Ethos? Then I'm not sure what he's doing using the word 'unethical' in his last post.

No doubt he will put us straight on the difference.

Tar.Aldarion

InFront wrote:

But they don't "have to", that simply isn't true. This thing of forced baptisms is a complete myth.

Doesn't sound like you know how our schools work. I would not have gotten into my school had I not been baptised. No myth there.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

robindch

InFront wrote:

Where you have written "oversees", try "owns". These are their schools. They do not belong to you. The Government can fund them until the end of the world, until there's a purchase agreement they'll never own them, nor dictate ethos and admissions policy. [...] It's their school they can do what they want. They are under no obligation to abandon their ethos or their fellow believers for the sake of others.

One can't help but wonder if the churches would be so enthusiastically disposing of unsuitable children if the government didn't pony up the cash to allow them to do so.

Mind you, as I pointed out above, Diarmuid Martin has said that the current system of arbitrary segregation can't continue, and he's quite right in that. You may disagree with the bishop if you wish.

InFront wrote:

As someone who received a fair bit of his education in a Christian ethos school, I think the Christians actually go quite far in facilitating those who do not submit to their beliefs in terms of education and resources.

What are schools for? Are they there to ensure the continuity of religion, or to educate children?

PDN

I agree that the present educational system is a disgrace & discriminates against non-Catholics. However, I'm interested by the attitudes expressed here. Who do all feel is primarily responsible for educating our children - the parents or the State?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I agree that the present educational system is a disgrace & discriminates against non-Catholics. However, I'm interested by the attitudes expressed here. Who do all feel is primarily responsible for educating our children - the parents or the State?

Both have responsibilities not sure how you could argue one more than the other.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Both have responsibilities not sure how you could argue one more than the other.

Well, I decided when my daughter was born that I didn't trust the Catholic Church, or the State, to have any part in her education. I took responsibility for her education and worked an extra job so as to send her to a small, church-run, private school that has never received a single penny of aid from the State. Last year, at 18 years old, she went to College and got her first taste of our State educational system.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Well, I decided when my daughter was born that I didn't trust the Catholic Church, or the State, to have any part in her education. I took responsibility for her education and worked an extra job so as to send her to a small, church-run, private school that has never received a single penny of aid from the State. Last year, at 18 years old, she went to College and got her first taste of our State educational system.

Interesting. Why did you not trust the Catholic Church or the state, if you don't mind me asking? What were your key concerns?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Interesting. Why did you not trust the Catholic Church or the state, if you don't mind me asking? What were your key concerns?

My major concerns stemmed from my experiences with the products of the State educational system. I've met too many foul-mouthed, ill educated little louts. Also, I have seen how non-Catholic children can be discriminated against in Catholic schools.

dereko1969

would you mind identifying the school? (understand if you don't want to) but i'd be very interested in knowing what schools don't get any state aid, presumably the fees would be enormous without the state paying the teachers salaries. this thread is veering off into a state education topic, which is probably a good thing. the education system here is reflective of the states abnegation of responsibility in a number of areas principally health and education where the churches were allowed to keep on running things while the state paid for virtually everything. it would be interesting to know what percentage the churches actually contribute to running any of their schools, yet can decide with the full agreement of the state to exclude citizens based on whether they share their beliefs?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

My major concerns stemmed from my experiences with the products of the State educational system. I've met too many foul-mouthed, ill educated little louts. Also, I have seen how non-Catholic children can be discriminated against in Catholic schools.

There are some good Protestant schools, Mount Temple, High School Rathgar, Wesley etc? What about them?
My school was a community school which was non demonial i.e. Catholic, Protestant etc. All community schools are like this. Would that not have been ok?

Tim Robbins

dereko1969 wrote:

would you mind identifying the school? (understand if you don't want to) but i'd be very interested in knowing what schools don't get any state aid, presumably the fees would be enormous without the state paying the teachers salaries. this thread is veering off into a state education topic, which is probably a good thing. the education system here is reflective of the states abnegation of responsibility in a number of areas principally health and education where the churches were allowed to keep on running things while the state paid for virtually everything. it would be interesting to know what percentage the churches actually contribute to running any of their schools, yet can decide with the full agreement of the state to exclude citizens based on whether they share their beliefs?

They don't just exclude children they decide who they employ. If the Parish priest has to make a decision between job applicants and knows one has a stronger faith, who do you think he'd pick?

5uspect

PDN wrote:

I'm interested by the attitudes expressed here. Who do all feel is primarily responsible for educating our children - the parents or the State?

I agree that it is a joint responsibility. The state must provide the best education system it can practically achieve and parents must ensure that their children reap the benefits of such a system.
Sending your kids to school, I'm sure you'll agree, is about much more than academic education. Parents must realise that a school is an environment where a huge amount of formative experiences are encountered and as a result I would rather send my (imaginary) kids to a school where a narrow religious or political view isn't entertained.

PDN wrote:

Well, I decided when my daughter was born that I didn't trust the Catholic Church, or the State, to have any part in her education. I took responsibility for her education and worked an extra job so as to send her to a small, church-run, private school that has never received a single penny of aid from the State. Last year, at 18 years old, she went to College and got her first taste of our State educational system.

It isn't all that bad is it? Whatever about primary and secondary level I'm quite proud of my third level institution.

My major concerns stemmed from my experiences with the products of the State educational system. I've met too many foul-mouthed, ill educated little louts. Also, I have seen how non-Catholic children can be discriminated against in Catholic schools.

While I agree about prejudice against the children of non-catholics (the kids can't possibly know what they are yet!), I find that a lot of the "loutness" is a direct result of parenting. There is a basic lack of respect for educators from the outset.

Tim, you're a teacher aren't you? Does this make any sense?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Well, I decided when my daughter was born that I didn't trust the Catholic Church, or the State, to have any part in her education.

Not following .. when you say "the State" what exactly do you mean?

Do you mean the standard education curriculum?

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

While I agree about prejudice against the children of non-catholics (the kids can't possibly know what they are yet!), I find that a lot of the "loutness" is a direct result of parenting. There is a basic lack of respect for educators from the outset.

Agree 100% with that .. never seen a school produce a lout, but seen plenty of parents produce one ..

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Not following .. when you say "the State" what exactly do you mean?

Do you mean the standard education curriculum?

I mean the whole educational system. Whether a school is owned by the Catholic Church or by the Department of Education (as in the UK) it involves handing responsibility over to the government for the educating of my child. I did not wish to do that. I believed I could do a better job.

dereko1969 wrote:

would you mind identifying the school? (understand if you don't want to) but i'd be very interested in knowing what schools don't get any state aid, presumably the fees would be enormous without the state paying the teachers salaries. this thread is veering off into a state education topic, which is probably a good thing. the education system here is reflective of the states abnegation of responsibility in a number of areas principally health and education where the churches were allowed to keep on running things while the state paid for virtually everything. it would be interesting to know what percentage the churches actually contribute to running any of their schools, yet can decide with the full agreement of the state to exclude citizens based on whether they share their beliefs?

If you want I can PM you the name of the school. The fees were very reasonable (about 150 euro per month) because many of the teachers work for very low salaries as a labour of love. I suspect, however, that the strong evangelical ethos would be abhorrent to most posters here.

5uspect wrote:

It isn't all that bad is it? Whatever about primary and secondary level I'm quite proud of my third level institution.

I would view third level education as something very different as it caters for adults, not children. My daughter is now a student (just about to enter her second year) and thoroughly enjoying both College life and the social interaction.