Is it time to organize?

Bubonic

Listening to the whole thing in the media right now about primary school places has got me thinking.

I recently had a son, and as it is I am fighting the baptism posse. But now when I try and find a school, its nearly impossible unless you are happy with a faith based school.

It annoyed me enough to look at the CSO website to see the religion results in the last census. What shocked me is that people who put down Atheism/Agnostic or no religion adds up to more than Church of Ireland, second only catholics.

Yet when the topic is discussed its always spoken about in terms of faith, and how people of alternate faiths deserve a place. There is a complete lack of recognition of the fact that some people do no want religion in their lives at all.

Are there any movements in Ireland to form a pressure group/voting block? If there is I will join, if not I would help start one.

Tim Robbins

Bubonic wrote:

Listening to the whole thing in the media right now about primary school places has got me thinking.

I recently had a son, and as it is I am fighting the baptism posse. But now when I try and find a school, its nearly impossible unless you are happy with a faith based school.

It annoyed me enough to look at the CSO website to see the religion results in the last census. What shocked me is that people who put down Atheism/Agnostic or no religion adds up to more than Church of Ireland, second only catholics.

Yet when the topic is discussed its always spoken about in terms of faith, and how people of alternate faiths deserve a place. There is a complete lack of recognition of the fact that some people do no want religion in their lives at all.

Are there any movements in Ireland to form a pressure group/voting block? If there is I will join, if not I would help start one.

http://www.educatetogether.ie/

Bubonic

I know about educate together, but they are not really representing atheists as such.

Its not just education, as a group we should be pushing for a proper church state separation .

Tim Robbins

Bubonic wrote:

I know about educate together, but they are not really representing atheists as such.

Its not just education, as a group we should be pushing for a proper church state separation .

Irish Humanist society.
http://www.humanism.ie/

JC 2K3

Humanism is a philosphical belief.

Rev Hellfire

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that schools cater for the majority who it would seem at this point are either in favour a religious element in primary schools or don't consider it a sufficient issue to warrant changing the status quo.

Educate-together it seems to me should suit your purposes.

Fanny Cradock

Hummm...

So you want to organise yourself around a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to the non-existence of any supernatural power?

JC 2K3

It would be more of an anti-religious bias lobby tbh.

Agent J

A state finaced institution discrimates on the basis of religion and requires proof of a particular affliation to allow children access to education.

Yep, that seems perfectly reasonable to me(!)

Shane_C

What about baptising your child? It might seem silly to you but the catholic church can instil good moral practice and can make a child feel like they belong. It can also answer some difficult questions for the moment, e.g. where do we go when we die.
When the child is old enough (s)he can then decide for him/herself, as you or I did, whether (s)he wishes to continue practising his/her faith.

qwertplaywert

If he/shes going to do that why not make the child a Jew/Muslim etc?

He/She is the parent- they should have the choice

Bubonic

The freedom to do something else is exactly my point.

I want to take the other approach. Bring them to not be sold in to anything and they can make their own mind up later. I really believe bringing up a child in a religion is indoctrination, not much different than the hitler youth.
The fact is religion knows this, if it didn't indoctrinate children nobody would go for the whole bible story as literal thing at all. Does anyone really think grown adults would listen to stories from the bible at 20 and decide to run their life based on it.

Besides, If I had to I would go with something else other than Catholicism. We live in a protestant country in reality, sex before marriage, contraception, divorce etc. If I want them to fit in I should make then C of I.

And yes I do think non-believers should organise, I know the argument is generally against this. People argue that it gains the trappings of religion when you organise but if you want to convince people a little of that may not be a bad thing. I think we sell ourselves short by being a totally nebulous grouping. In the states it is estimated there are more Atheists than Jews and yet look at the lobby group the jews have.

Basically I suppose my argument is that Atheists/Agnostics etc have no political power and there is no good reason for that other than ourselves.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Hummm...

So you want to organise yourself around a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to the non-existence of any supernatural power?

Mm, no - that would be playing along with the current system. If we feel that the education system, being publicly funded, should be secular, then pretending that atheism is a "faith" is counter-productive as well as inherently dishonest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Bubonic wrote:

The freedom to do something else is exactly my point.

I want to take the other approach. Bring them to not be sold in to anything and they can make their own mind up later. I really believe bringing up a child in a religion is indoctrination, not much different than the hitler youth.
The fact is religion knows this, if it didn't indoctrinate children nobody would go for the whole bible story as literal thing at all. Does anyone really think grown adults would listen to stories from the bible at 20 and decide to run their life based on it.

Besides, If I had to I would go with something else other than Catholicism. We live in a protestant country in reality, sex before marriage, contraception, divorce etc. If I want them to fit in I should make then C of I.

And yes I do think non-believers should organise, I know the argument is generally against this. People argue that it gains the trappings of religion when you organise but if you want to convince people a little of that may not be a bad thing. I think we sell ourselves short by being a totally nebulous grouping. In the states it is estimated there are more Atheists than Jews and yet look at the lobby group the jews have.

Let's not go there - it was an incredibly stupid thing for Dawkins to say, even for Dawkins.

Bubonic wrote:

Basically I suppose my argument is that Atheists/Agnostics etc have no political power and there is no good reason for that other than ourselves.

Or, as Wicknight will point out, that apart from the atheism, we have nothing necessarily in common - well, other than the fact that we're nearly all secular-minded left-leaning liberals. Also of course the same is true of Christians, and Jews, and Muslims, etc etc.

Hmm. What would you suggest?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire

Agent J wrote:

A state finaced institution discrimates on the basis of religion and requires proof of a particular affliation to allow children access to education.

Yep, that seems perfectly reasonable to me(!)

Interesting ! Perhaps you'd provide proof of where the state has denied someone an education based solely on their religious beliefs.

That the particular form of education you require might not be convenient for you is immaterial and at present the current systems seems to suit the majority of people who either wish to have the religious element included or are indifferent to it.

It would make no financial sense at present to attempt to radically alter the system, the gradual inclusion of schools such those managed by the educate together programme seems the logical course to be taken.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Interesting ! Perhaps you'd provide proof of where the state has denied someone an education based solely on their religious beliefs.

If the state refuses to take control of the school system and actively encourages faith based establishments (which it does) then it is supporting the bias and prejudices of those establishments.

The law states that schools have a defence against the equality act in that they can discriminate where it is deemed necessary to protect the theological stand point of the school.

The result of this is children whose families are not Catholic (the predominant religious superstition in ireland) are discriminated against in favor of children who are. The government has provided legislation, it supports the practice, therefore it is complicit in the discrimination against children and can be reasonably accused of actively denying education based on faith.

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote:

If the state refuses to take control of the school system and actively encourages faith based establishments (which it does) then it is supporting the bias and prejudices of those establishments.

To say that the state refuses to take control of school system is somewhat misleading. If the state refused funding to bodies that are not religious then perhaps you could argue that was the case, but it is clearly not as the funding for educate together (and other denominational) schools proves.

In the end of the day the educational budget is better spent funding a system which the majority are in favor off in preference to the state spending a large volume of finances to buy out the existing schools to satisfy the needs of a minority.

I've yet to see a case where a child is refused entry to a school which is not oversubscribed based on religion.

MoominPapa

The VECs are starting to move into primary education, their ethos is multi-denominational. This along with the gradual expansion of the Educate Together network is the about as radical a change you can expect and should probably want. Radical changes to anything, particularly education systems, and moving to a secular education system would be just that, are fraught with danger and we may end up in a worse position than where we are. I'm lucky that there are two educate together schools within reasonable distance from my home which I will be signing my new born up to in the next few months. I doubt I'll get him in though and he will probably end up going to the Catholic school around the corner. Any indoctrination he undergoes will have to be undone in the evenings and weekends, after all it didn't work on me despite my semi-devout parents.
Things are moving in the right direction, it'll just take a hell of a long time, and thats the only possibility of getting it right, there is no quick fix and these things are happening, including the CC talking of giving up patronage, without a strong secular/atheist lobby.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote:

To say that the state refuses to take control of school system is somewhat misleading. If the state refused funding to bodies that are not religious then perhaps you could argue that was the case, but it is clearly not as the funding for educate together (and other denominational) schools proves.

In the end of the day the educational budget is better spent funding a system which the majority are in favor off in preference to the state spending a large volume of finances to buy out the existing schools to satisfy the needs of a minority.

I've yet to see a case where a child is refused entry to a school which is not oversubscribed based on religion.

So you are saying that the religious needs of others outweigh the moral obligation of the government to provide education to all?

My argument simply stated that through the funding of establishments that actively discrimninate and through legislation protecting their right to (which are both facts, look them up yourself) they are complicit and party to said discrimination. It can also be argued from this position that the government condones such practices.

Whether are child has been denied a place is irrelevant since the defence exists to protect the religious dogma of a school, they have the right to discriminate. In a secular society (we eliminated the special position of the Catholic Church in the 70's from our Constitution) the government should have no business condoning these practices and should, by its own mandate, provide for the educational needs of everyone itself. It does not. It palm this responsibility off to the church who then choose Catholic children over non-catholics.

the Balbriggan school proves this ... or are you suggesting that every single one of the non-catholic (predominantly black) children that has ended up there after applying to a Catholic controled school applied later than all the other children? That Catholic children are somehow more punctual than non-catholics?

Hivemind187

MoominPapa wrote:

The VECs are starting to move into primary education, their ethos is multi-denominational. This along with the gradual expansion of the Educate Together network is the about as radical a change you can expect and should probably want. Radical changes to anything, particularly education systems, and moving to a secular education system would be just that, are fraught with danger and we may end up in a worse position than where we are. I'm lucky that there are two educate together schools within reasonable distance from my home which I will be signing my new born up to in the next few months. I doubt I'll get him in though and he will probably end up going to the Catholic school around the corner. Any indoctrination he undergoes will have to be undone in the evenings and weekends, after all it didn't work on me despite my semi-devout parents.
Things are moving in the right direction, it'll just take a hell of a long time, and thats the only possibility of getting it right, there is no quick fix and these things are happening, including the CC talking of giving up patronage, without a strong secular/atheist lobby.

Um ... how can a secular school which, as a rule, would have no part in the indoctrination of children with religious propaganda leave us in a worse position?

That said, Educate Together and the others are at least a step in the right direction. Just not far enough in my opinion.

At the end of the day, the government is claiming to be secular on paper then touting "aggressive secularists" and religious schools on the other. A contradiction in terms and an ethical failure.

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote:

So you are saying that the religious needs of others outweigh the moral obligation of the government to provide education to all?

Not exactly, but I am saying the wants of the majority outweighs the wants of the few. And if the majority feel they need a religious element in their education then so be it.

Hivemind187 wrote:

the Balbriggan school proves this ... or are you suggesting that every single one of the non-catholic (predominantly black) children that has ended up there after applying to a Catholic controled school applied later than all the other children? That Catholic children are somehow more punctual than non-catholics?

I don't believe it does prove it, they weren't turned away from a school with available places those schools where oversubscribed, seems perfectly reasonable to me. They arrived late so must deal with the consequences of that.

As a side note, I personally don't believe the issue here is the religious bent of the schools, but rather that lacks of available places.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Not exactly, but I am saying the wants of the majority outweighs the wants of the few. And if the majority feel they need a religious element in their education then so be it.


I don't believe it does prove it, they weren't turned away from a school with available places those schools where oversubscribed, seems perfectly reasonable to me. They arrived late so must deal with the consequences of that.

As a side note, I personally don't believe the issue here is the religious bent of the schools, but rather that lacks of available places.

I'm not sure I can agree with this.

Firstly I dont think the majority of people care that there is areligious element to education and a large number would certainly prefer to see the time wasted on it devoted to more important things like English, Mathematics and Science. Outside of the stuanchly devoted and the religious teachers the apathy towards RE is quite broadly felt.

As for the allocation of places. You are claiming that black non-catholic children (or their parents if you will) are tardy whereas catholic (white) chldren and parents are prompt? That seems a little facetious. The fact is that schools can choose who to admit and who cant, if you are saying that everyone of these kids turned up late on the registration day I will argue that it is statisically difficult to accept.

The number of places in schools is shambolic I'll give you that but it is being made worse by prejudicial practices.

MoominPapa

Hivemind187 wrote:

Um ... how can a secular school which, as a rule, would have no part in the indoctrination of children with religious propaganda leave us in a worse position?

I'm talking about the practicalities of moving to a secular system, I'm not arguing against a secular system as the end goal or about individual schools. A secular system run by independent boards of management with the minimum state involvement is the ideal, IMO, kind of like the situation we currently have but without the church.
The cost, legal complications and lets not forget the people who want their children indoctrinated all make a whole sale change unlikely and if attempted could leave us in a right mess.

Hivemind187 wrote:

That said, Educate Together and the others are at least a step in the right direction. Just not far enough in my opinion.

I would rather get there in steps than by jumps

Hivemind187 wrote:

At the end of the day, the government is claiming to be secular on paper then touting "aggressive secularists" and religious schools on the other. A contradiction in terms and an ethical failure.

Shock, horror. You are far more likely to get a secular education system in place by next week than have this government acting in a consistent and/or ethical manner. Which is why I think its better that independent and semi state bodies, such as the vec's, carry out the transformation. At least there is a chance of it happening this way

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote:

I'm not sure I can agree with this.

Firstly I dont think the majority of people care that there is areligious element to education and a large number would certainly prefer to see the time wasted on it devoted to more important things like English, Mathematics and Science. Outside of the stuanchly devoted and the religious teachers the apathy towards RE is quite broadly felt.

I'd certainly agree with you the majority (I suspect) are indifferent about religious element, but that is not a mandate for change its simply for keeping the status quo.

Hivemind187 wrote:

As for the allocation of places. You are claiming that black non-catholic children (or their parents if you will) are tardy whereas catholic (white) chldren and parents are prompt?

Not exactly. If we look at where I'm from putting your child down for a place as soon as possible, and as soon as possible means 2-3 years ahead is what's required to guarantee a place in certain schools.
For pupils from an area that has v.high demand means that by not applying very early means your chances of a place in your locality is at risk.
Added to the fact those on the waiting list are ranked on age, position and religion you can see how it can happen to those particular children. I simply suspect they left it to late and then played the race card.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'd certainly agree with you the majority (I suspect) are indifferent about religious element, but that is not a mandate for change its simply for keeping the status quo.


Not exactly. If we look at where I'm from putting your child down for a place as soon as possible, and as soon as possible means 2-3 years ahead is what's required to guarantee a place in certain schools.
For pupils from an area that has v.high demand means that by not applying very early means your chances of a place in your locality is at risk.
Added to the fact those on the waiting list are ranked on age, position and religion you can see how it can happen to those particular children. I simply suspect they left it to late and then played the race card.

So you are agreeing that children are discriminated against on grounds of religion (which was the original point) and therefore it can be assumed that in a case where there are two children with no real differences other than religion (and posibly skin colour) the catholic child will secure a place ahead of the Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/Buddhist/Shinto/Pagan child?

While I agree that there is no doubt that too few places exist and those that do perhaps lack resources, there is no justification for the discrimination on grounds of religion.

As for the status quo, I would argue that in the interests of a more equal society it is worth eliminating the religious indoctrination from schools and leaving those practices up to the family and the various communities rahter than using public funds to support them.

Rev Hellfire

Hivemind187 wrote:

So you are agreeing that children are discriminated against on grounds of religion (which was the original point) and therefore it can be assumed that in a case where there are two children with no real differences other than religion (and posibly skin colour) the catholic child will secure a place ahead of the Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/Buddhist/Shinto/Pagan child?

I'd agree with the statement to a point. Certainly I can see how preference can (and perhaps should) be given to children who have enrolled early and are from the locality, and then once those conditions have been satisfied preference can be given to those children who's religion/upbringing match that those of the school. This is my understanding on how the system works in practice.

I'd certainly agree that it may not be an ideal system but it is an adequate one when dealing with a finite resource.

Hivemind187 wrote:

As for the status quo, I would argue that in the interests of a more equal society it is worth eliminating the religious indoctrination from schools and leaving those practices up to the family and the various communities rahter than using public funds to support them.

I'd disagree, as long as the majority favour the current system there is no reason to change it. Certainly at what would be a huge cost with little support from the electorate for little real tangible benefit.

The state may have a duty to provide an education to all children (which it does), It doesn't mean it must make it easily accessible in all cases.

Again the needs of the majority should as always take precedence over the minority.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Again the needs of the majority should as always take precedence over the minority.

People who want and need education are in the majority. People who want to ensure that education remains catholic controlled would be a minority of them (by numbers). Call it semantics but the fact remains that the government has a duty to provide for education up to an including Third level with an increasing focus the further down you go (except for pre-school which the government takes to active role in).

Arguing that public apathy towards the subject somehow justifies maintaining the control the Church has over schools is inane. Playing the money card is also a misrepresentation of the facts.

Yes, wrestling the school system from the hands of the church will cost a few bucks, but considering that between 70 and 90% of funding for faith based schools is coming from the national coffers it makes very light argument against a change.

In the long term the benefits of secular schooling are clear. You spend less time preaching and more time teaching. You remove many of the daft dogma's surrounding teaching (i.e. gay teachers afraid to be open or even comfortable in their jobs due to their sexuality) and you dont have to waste valuable class time in biology arguing whether dinosaurs really existed.

Schools, as much as the state, should be secular. Religion is the business of families, the individual and the community (chuch, synagogue, bible group specifically) and it should not be the positon of the state to say "if you didnt want to believe in god you should have come to this school" (a quote from a 5th year teacher).

Rev Hellfire

I guess in the end of the day we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I certainly think the cost of purchasing school land is not to be underestimated.

I think the amount time spent teaching religion is minimal at best if its given even 1-2 hours a week I'd be amazed. Certainly my son isn't spending any real amount of time in comparison to the time spent learning 'useful' skills as to make it a non-issue in my mind.

Hivemind187

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I guess in the end of the day we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I certainly think the cost of purchasing school land is not to be underestimated.

I think the amount time spent teaching religion is minimal at best if its given even 1-2 hours a week I'd be amazed. Certainly my son isn't spending any real amount of time in comparison to the time spent learning 'useful' skills as to make it a non-issue in my mind.

I dont agree to that!

I agree that there would be some cost involved but in the long run it would be negligable and it would grant the full control of those schools to the state.

Admitedly it is only my opinion but I think that any time devoted to something which is not educational or useful is a waste in schools. In all honesty, the actual ammount oftime children have in school to learn is quite limited (various factors reducing both the learning and the cognitive abilities throughout a day not to mention the ineptitude of the standard teaching model), I cant think of a single good reason to waste the time. Now, if you were to put the case forward for a class on cultural exchanges, learning the rituals and customs of immigrant cultures that would be a far more productive use and thoughrouhgly secular.