Church Weddings

InFront

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Cork? I counted 63 primary schools onthis page. Are you seriously trying to suggest that there's just 1 or maybe 2 schools out of 63 in that city with non Catholics???

I'd like my children to be able to walk/cycle to school and be in the same school as their friends from where they live.

Sure, you'd simply prefer it. That's not force, it's convenience. If convenience is worth more than a reluctance about baptising a child, if convenience carries more weight than sending the child to a specific religious school where baptism is considered important, well it was probably never much of a reluctance to begin with. So people should really stop acting like this is some terrible disgrace. You choose it, it's clearly not a very big deal.

InFront

robindch wrote:

Are they there to ensure the continuity of religion, or to educate children?

It's there for the child's developent, not religion for religion's sake. A religious school exists to aid the development of a child intellectually, socially and in terms of his faith.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

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

I did some secular volunteer teaching work this year, but it's not my daytime job.

robindch

InFront wrote:

A religious school exists to aid the development of a child intellectually, socially and in terms of his faith.

It's not the child's religion, but rather the religion of the parents -- a child is born free from religion. I can't comment on what anybody else got in RE class, but mine was intended to justify the religion, and had nothing to do with intellectual or social development. Was anybody else's RE any different?

InFront wrote:

It's there for the child's developent, not religion for religion's sake.

If that's the case, then how come the child's interest in an education comes second place to the religion's interest (or otherwise) in the child?

Tim Robbins

InFront wrote:

It's there for the child's developent, not religion for religion's sake. A religious school exists to aid the development of a child intellectually, socially and in terms of his faith.

You are avoiding the issue here. What if you can't find a school for your children because they are the wrong faith?
Fine if schools want to refuse people because they have the wrong religion, but they should not be allowed to receive tax payers money and refuse people. They should use their own money to have, if they don't want to serve the public.

In Front, Where do you draw the line? Do you think Tesco should be allowed refuse people for being the wrong faith as well?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

InFront

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, you didn't. You said "If you didn't baptise your child in my area you'd be looking at a choice of about one or two schools in the whole city". That means parents without baptised children have a choice of only 2 schools in Cork. You don't actually think anyone here is going to take that seriously?
Catholic schools do take non Catholics, I have two infant nephews who attend one. Obviously a school under severe pressure won't take non Catholics anymore than the Muslim Primary School in Clonskeagh will take non Muslims.

I think it's terrible and a complete dereliction of it's duty.

Of course the state should not be relying on religious groups to take responsibility for everyone's education. I don't mean this in a rude way, but atheists want schools, maybe they should build them like religious groups have done? I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem in getting state funding to run it.

Tim Robbins

InFront wrote:

No, you didn't. You said "If you didn't baptise your child in my area you'd be looking at a choice of about one or two schools in the whole city". That means parents without baptised children have a choice of only 2 schools in Cork. You don't actually think anyone here is going to take that seriously?

You are being a bit naive. You can't expect a parent to take chances that there is going to be a "leftover place" for their child.

Of course the state should not be relying on religious groups to take responsibility for everyone's education. I don't mean this in a rude way, but atheists want schools, maybe they should build them like religious groups have done? I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem in getting state funding to run it.

Look, it comes down to a simple question you either accept discrimination or you reject it.

InFront

TR That's completely daft. It's like arguing that St Killian's Deutsche Schule here in Dublin is "discriminating" against those who don't want to speak German, for goodness sake. Let me ask you, do you think they should have to take your son if he had no interest in speaking German?

You can't expect a parent to take chances that there is going to be a "leftover place" for their child

I'm not saying the current system works well, my argument is just that religious schools have every right to operate as they do. If there's no leftover place, it isn't their problem.

robindch wrote:

how come the child's interest in an education comes second place to the religion's interest (or otherwise) in the child?

I think you have that mixed up. In a religious school, faith is a part of the school's identity and the child's education and development. A child whose parents don't want it being part of that specific development or identity have a diminshed involvement or interest with the school's principles.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Spyral

1st :LoL @ this thread, it's interesting

2nd: If the Government wants to pay for schools good for them. The whingers and moaners should realise that without the religous schools there would be NO education in ireland.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sangre

There would be no education because our government are idiots. What kind of developed country doesn't have a wholly government run education system that can even support a bare majority of the state? Its a farce we have let it come this far.

I can't believe anyone would find the current state of education in Ireland in anyway acceptable. All governments and their departments should be secular.

Dades

Spyral wrote:

The whingers and moaners should realise that without the religous schools there would be NO education in ireland.

Hasn't that been the point all along?

InFront

touché:D

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

... yeah. I think you're still getting mixed up between choice and preference. No choice means no alternative, a preference is a preferred alternative. To say that someone has no alternative but to baptise their child isn't correct, it's their preferred alternative.
People need to figure out who they're mad at here. There's no good reason to be mad at the religious schools who are going about their own business while everybody vehemently demands a place therein or blames religious organisations for discrimination because elsewhere the state has shortchanged them. They're doing a job for you that they were never supposed to be doing to begin with.
If you have an issue you need to take it up with the Government. Atheists aren't doing this (in fairness, few non Christians are).

Sangre

Theres also the fact most people don't really considering sending there child to a school an hour away and isolated from all his neighbours a choice.

Anyway, most people with any sense aren't mad at the church but the governement. I don't remember reading about anyone attacking the church about this.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

robindch

InFront wrote:

robindch wrote:

How come the child's interest in an education comes second place to the religion's interest (or otherwise) in the child?

I think you have that mixed up.

No, I don't have it mixed up. Either the church's interest overrides the child's or the child's overrides the church's. At the moment, the church can overrule a child's wish to be educated, and a child cannot demand to be educated at a particular school. Hence, my point.

InFront wrote:

I don't mean this in a rude way, but atheists want schools, maybe they should build them like religious groups have done?

That's what's been happened -- some friends of mine were directly involved in setting up the Educate Together schools, after some of their kids had been made thoroughly unwelcome in the school they were at in south Dublin in the 70's by a man who cared more about the religious purity of the school that he controlled, than the children that he was paid to care for.

InFront wrote:

There's no good reason to be mad at the religious schools who are going about their own business while everybody vehemently demands a place therein or blames religious organisations for discrimination because elsewhere the state has shortchanged them.

Do you mean that it's the state's fault that the churches control around 98% of the schools in Ireland? Does the church have no responsibility in this, or, as it seems, are you accepting my point above that the church's main aim in running schools is to produce lots of young religious people?

JoeB-

Splendour wrote:

The baptismal bit kills me though. Why the Catholic church allows this is beyond me. For most babies being baptised the priest knows the kid ain't gonna see inside a church for years,yet they blatantly allow parents to lie in church about bringing their child up in the Catholic faith.

Richard Dawkins alleges in his book 'The God Delusion' that people can be baptised without their consent by laypeople.... i.e a drop of water, say the phrase 'I baptize you in the name of.. etc etc' and the person is baptized. Irrevocably.

It reminds me of Homer taking a baptismal for Bart...

I wonder what happens if I walk down Grafton St on a rainy day baptizing people?... maybe it's only Catholics who can baptize people without their consent... or what about shouting the words out at a crowded football match in the rain, there'd be loads of new Catholics then?

I would have a major problem allowing my children to be baptized... I don't think I could have children with a catholic girl because of this.... I accept Dawkins reasoning that religion is a mojor force for evil in the world and shouldn't be tolerated.

Cheers
Joe

JoeB-

I've read this whole thread now and the situation would seem to be a disgrace.

Children have a constitutional right to be educated... these rights are being trampled upon if they can't get into schools because their parents are non religious. All children are non religious virtually by definition, it's the parents who are religious.

Also parents can be presecuted if they don't send their children to school... but if the state doesn't provide (reasonably accessable) schools that law is a joke. I agree with Dawkins again that indoctrinating or attemting to indoctrinate children with religious ideas is a form of child abuse and it can be as damaging as physical abuse... and as a society we don't allow physical abuse so why allow mental abuse and attempted brainwashing?

Should parents be allowed to educate their children in any way they see fit? i.e should I be allowed to teach my children that the sun is a God and we should appease him with human sacrifices so we'll have a good crop of wheat next year? And if not that why should it be ok to teach them any religious ideas?
I challange anyone to explain why sun worshipping is any less valid than any of the mainstream religions.

Should Jehovah's Witnesses be allowed to let their children die because they have a religious rule that says blood tranfusions are out? Is it acceptable that the Amish in America refuse to use technology more recent than the 17th century? Almost certainly this has a negative impact on the childs development and so should be considered child abuse as surely as if the parents hit the children.

In short it is quite clear to me that religion in all its forms should be disallowed in the education of children. In the same way parents aren't permitted to lock their children in a basement for years.

Cheers
Joe

Tim Robbins

InFront wrote:

TR That's completely daft. It's like arguing that St Killian's Deutsche Schule here in Dublin is "discriminating" against those who don't want to speak German, for goodness sake. Let me ask you, do you think they should have to take your son if he had no interest in speaking German?

You might have a point if 94% or so of schools in Ireland did what St. Killian's did.

Tim Robbins

Spyral wrote:

The whingers and moaners should realise that without the religous schools there would be NO education in ireland.

You could say the same about several Hospitals. Do you think these Hospitals should still be allowed to refuse people for having the wrong Religion?

aidan24326

JoeBallantine wrote:

Should Jehovah's Witnesses be allowed to let their children die because they have a religious rule that says blood tranfusions are out?

Of course not, but thankfully medical staff can usually overrule the parents in that case.

InFront you just don't get it at all. If the Catholic church were running their own private schools funded by them then of course they could accept/reject as they please. But they are funded by the government (i.e you and I), not by the vatican, therein lies the problem.

I don't necessarily blame the RC church themselves, they're only doing what they always do, protecting their own interests. Our government are to blame for allowing this outrageous situation to continue. The issue here is separation of church and state, which part of that do you not understand?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

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.

Getting a bit off topic, but just so I have you straight. You think you could do a better job teaching your child English, Irish, Mathematics, Geography, Science, History etc to Leaving Certificate standard than a team of professionally trained teachers working from the national curriculum?

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

Getting a bit off topic, but just so I have you straight. You think you could do a better job teaching your child English, Irish, Mathematics, Geography, Science, History etc to Leaving Certificate standard than a team of professionally trained teachers working from the national curriculum?

I was listening to a teaching recently on this subject by an American preacher. He refused totally to send his kids to mainstream school as didn't want them mixing with non Christians. His thinking was home schooling was the best way.It's becoming popular here too, though I don't know how parents who aren't trained as teachers cope!

Whereas I understand PDN sending his daughter to a Christian school, I think the idea of schooling kids at home is detrimental to their social skills.Not to mention the impact it would have on a parent's sanity!!

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Getting a bit off topic, but just so I have you straight. You think you could do a better job teaching your child English, Irish, Mathematics, Geography, Science, History etc to Leaving Certificate standard than a team of professionally trained teachers working from the national curriculum?

No, but I think I can do a better job of choosing the teachers and choosing the curriculum.

BTW, my daughter finished her secondary schooling before her 17th birthday, took a gap year, and started College last year. She is top of her class, although that may be because of her genes rather than my choice of school.

rockbeer

PDN wrote:

She is top of her class, although that may be because of her genes rather than my choice of school.

And of course she has god on her side too

Bottle_of_Smoke

Quote:
I'd like my children to be able to walk/cycle to school and be in the same school as their friends from where they live.

InFront wrote:

Sure, you'd simply prefer it. That's not force, it's convenience. If convenience is worth more than a reluctance about baptising a child, if convenience carries more weight than sending the child to a specific religious school where baptism is considered important, well it was probably never much of a reluctance to begin with. So people should really stop acting like this is some terrible disgrace. You choose it, it's clearly not a very big deal.

It's a bit more than convienience. Kids can't drive get a taxi to their mates house 10 miles away like an adult can.

I could see your point if they were funding it themselves - but they've been recieving grants etc. Also Catholiscism in Ireland is more of community tradition than a faith because it was so unquestioned in the past. So back in the day when the church built all these schools it was getting its money from the community who were pretty much all Catholics.

You've made the point about Hindus/Muslims/Jews having to go through the same thing. I can pretty much guarantee you that everyone here thinks that's just as much of a disgrace.

I would see it as comepletely acceptable if schools for the above denominations were to reject people on religious grounds as they serve minorities. Catholic schools don't.

Sangre

PDN wrote:

No, but I think I can do a better job of choosing the teachers and choosing the curriculum.

Do you really choose the curriculum though if she has to sit state exams?