New State Schools & Religion

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

Not as misinformed as your sources, apparently.

Next you'll be saying that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information !

Rev Hellfire

Personally I see nothing wrong with what the catholic church is doing. If an organisation is asked to run something it seems reasonable that it would seek to put its stamp on it; since it is after all using its resources (be it money, land or the time and expertise of its members).

Really if atheists have anyone to blame its purely the government and perhaps the secular organisations for not stepping up sufficiently so that the involvement of the church is not required.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Personally I see nothing wrong with what the catholic church is doing. If an organisation is asked to run something it seems reasonable that it would seek to put its stamp on it; since it is after all using its resources (be it money, land or the time and expertise of its members).

To clarify, I assume you are talking here with respect to "faith" schools, rather than the new non-denom schools as described in the original article. The new schools have no link to the church, financially or otherwise.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Really if atheists have anyone to blame its purely the government and perhaps the secular organisations for not stepping up sufficiently so that the involvement of the church is not required.

But as the current situation (viv a vis schools in general) is a remnant of when the church owned half the country, there simply isn't the funds to "buy" the church out of the education system. All most people want is less discrimination from those schools as to who they let in - in recognition of the fact that the schools are now state funded.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

I think you're a bit confused here. Has been covered in the Christianity forum before. parthenos is the usual Greek word for 'virgin' and is translated as such by most scholars. For example, the technical word in English for virgin birth is parthenogenesis. There is no word for 'maid' that differs by one letter.


Not as misinformed as your sources, apparently.

He's probably talking about the Isaiah of the Septuagint, and even then the Isaiah of the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew into Greek, not the original.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

To clarify, I assume you are talking here with respect to "faith" schools, rather than the new non-denom schools as described in the original article. The new schools have no link to the church, financially or otherwise.

My mistake, I agree that where they haven't put up they should have limited involvement.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

My mistake, I agree that where they haven't put up they should have limited involvement.

That's understandable - the discussion has "evolved" as it so often does here!

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

That's understandable - the discussion has "evolved" as it so often does here!

I see it as intelligently led

*I'll get my coat

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

My mistake, I agree that where they haven't put up they should have limited involvement.

It is questionable whether they ever put up for many of the existing schools.

My primary school was established in the 1880's (by the local landlord), they moved to the current site (land donated by a local farmer) with a building (paid by the state + sale of old school) in the 1970s. It was extended recently (paid by the state).

The state pay's the teachers’ salaries

Over the years the parents drove many local fundraising campaigns to pay for extras.

The local church's contribution was a monthly visit from the PP, but it is a still a catholic school.

A new non-denom school has opened nearby and I think that despite several generations of my family going to the old school, I will be sending the next to the new one. That is a bit ahead of me still though.

lostexpectation

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Personally I see nothing wrong with what the catholic church is doing. If an organisation is asked to run something it seems reasonable that it would seek to put its stamp on it; since it is after all using its resources (be it money, land or the time and expertise of its members).

Really if atheists have anyone to blame its purely the government and perhaps the secular organisations for not stepping up sufficiently so that the involvement of the church is not required.

that's taxpayers money they using, and the population of Ireland funded the setting up of these schools, ps also the education system of Ireland was set up originaly to be non-dom, the catholic church twisted it to its purposes.

Rev Hellfire

lostexpectation wrote: »

that's taxpayers money they using, and the population of Ireland funded the setting up of these schools, ps also the education system of Ireland was set up originaly to be non-dom, the catholic church twisted it to its purposes.

At the risk of derailing the thread I think its worth noting that population in general was/is quite happy (and continues to be supportive if not plain indifferent) to allowing the religious institions lead on this matter since it matched their view point.
Its democracy at work in its purest form, now we're seeing a gradual shift away from that position as society itself changes.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Next you'll be saying that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information !

Often it isn't - but in this particular case, Wikipedia gets an A grade!

wikipedia wrote:

The English cognate "maid" was often used to imply virginity, especially in poetry.

By contrast, the Greek word for "virgin" is parthenos (παρθένος, see Parthenon). Although typically applied to women, like English, it is also applied to men, in both cases specifically denoting absence of sexual experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin

lostexpectation

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

At the risk of derailing the thread I think its worth noting that population in general was/is quite happy (and continues to be supportive if not plain indifferent) to allowing the religious institions lead on this matter since it matched their view point.
Its democracy at work in its purest form, now we're seeing a gradual shift away from that position as society itself changes.

(you were actually more on topic with that comment even if it was wrong.)

48% says otherwise, and there no choice of school ,that's not democracy. the church and state have been actively hindering this gradual shift you talk of.

if you can't recognise that the constitution is currently being broken the church and the state go back your god delusions.

Rev Hellfire

lostexpectation wrote: »

48% says otherwise, and there no choice of school ,that's not democracy.

Care to back up that statistic, where exactly have 48% objected to the current system ?
If there was 48% objecting to the current status-quo you can be sure it would be capitalised on by the various political parties and given far more media coverage than is currently available.

lostexpectation

I still can't figure out how this non-veto is going to work
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0326/1206144724961.html

Bishop O'Reilly said it was "essential that such provision be entrusted to qualified religious education teachers approved by the various faith traditions".

He requested that, in the newer schools, teachers delivering religious instruction to Catholic pupils "be duly qualified and approved by the competent religious authorities" and that they be also required to have a certificate in religious instruction or an equivalent from an approved college.

what about the other possible 20 faiths in the school, are they all going to get to cherry pick a teacher of their faith? note he's not talking about guest clergy.

Dades

I think the stats lostexpectation was referring to in his rather brusque post were from here.

lostexpectation

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Care to back up that statistic, where exactly have 48% objected to the current system ?
If there was 48% objecting to the current status-quo you can be sure it would be capitalised on by the various political parties and given far more media coverage than is currently available.

it was already linked I thought you might have read it
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/bishops-seek-religion-veto-on-teachers-in-new-schools-1326487.html

do you or do you not recognise the current 95% colosal near insurmountable deficit in non-denominational schools which has prevented school choice in Ireland.

Rev Hellfire

lostexpectation wrote: »

it was already linked I thought you might have read it
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/bishops-seek-religion-veto-on-teachers-in-new-schools-1326487.html

tbh I missed it. but by the same token having read it now I don't see it as an objection by 48% to the current system, rather a sizeable majority 47 + 37 favour a religious element within the school system with a minority wishing for no religion within the school. A far different picture than the one portrayed by lost in my view.

lostexpectation wrote: »

do you or do you not recognise the current 95% colosal near insurmountable deficit in non-denominational schools which has prevented school choice in Ireland.

No, in a nutshell. I acknowledge a system which is far from perfect, but been a pragmatist feel at present the system we have will suffice until such time it can be evolved into more accommodating (if possible) for minorities at a reasonable burden to the taxpayer.

PDN

If the Catholic Church aren't prepared to be involved in these schools under reasonable conditions then that is great. I don't see why any church should be involved in a State school.

Run the school as a nondenominational entity. Of course religion needs to be taught as a subject, but this can be done in a way that is educational rather than indoctrination. Teach the beliefs of different religions, and invite representatives in to answer questions (including someone representing atheism). If the Catholic Church doesn't want to participate then that is their loss.

As for first communion preparation etc - that is up to the Church to sort out, not the school. They can do it in their own time in their own buildings.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

If the Catholic Church aren't prepared to be involved in these schools under reasonable conditions then that is great. I don't see why any church should be involved in a State school.

Run the school as a nondenominational entity. Of course religion needs to be taught as a subject, but this can be done in a way that is educational rather than indoctrination. Teach the beliefs of different religions, and invite representatives in to answer questions (including someone representing atheism). If the Catholic Church doesn't want to participate then that is their loss.

As for first communion preparation etc - that is up to the Church to sort out, not the school. They can do it in their own time in their own buildings.

I would favour something like this. But the problem I think is that most people have to wait until they are 10 before any form of critical and objective thinking evolves in their brain.

I am not sure the above arrangements would work when kids still don't know the facts of life and the younger ones still believe in Santa.

The other problem is basically FF who don't want to alienate their large conservative Catholic vote. They shockingly sat on the fence in '95 divorce referendum and they are doing the same with this issue.

Right now it's atheists, protestants and other minorities that are drawing the short straw. That doesn't bother FF, because its just not a large vote.

If PDs were larger this issue would have been sorted a long time ago.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If PDs were larger this issue would have been sorted a long time ago.

You don't think Mary Harney is large enough?

Dave!

PDN wrote: »

If the Catholic Church aren't prepared to be involved in these schools under reasonable conditions then that is great. I don't see why any church should be involved in a State school.

Run the school as a nondenominational entity. Of course religion needs to be taught as a subject, but this can be done in a way that is educational rather than indoctrination. Teach the beliefs of different religions, and invite representatives in to answer questions (including someone representing atheism). If the Catholic Church doesn't want to participate then that is their loss.

As for first communion preparation etc - that is up to the Church to sort out, not the school. They can do it in their own time in their own buildings.

You need to be more careful with your password PDN, someone has obviously hacked your account!

Good post!

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I don't see it as an objection by 48% to the current system, rather a sizeable majority 47 + 37 favour a religious element within the school system with a minority wishing for no religion within the school. A far different picture than the one portrayed by lost in my view.

Surely those who have a preference for all religions to be taught, and those who prefer no religion is taught should both be seen as opposing the current situation where only one religion is taught in 95% of schools?

PDN wrote: »

Teach the beliefs of different religions, and invite representatives in to answer questions (including someone representing atheism).

I think a Humanist might be the prudent choice for the "no God" option! Though I'm sure we could put forward a candidate if asked.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Though I'm sure we could put forward a candidate if asked.

My vote's for Dades -- I think he's the only one here with "ethos"

Dades

robindch wrote: »

My vote's for Dades -- I think he's the only one here with "ethos"

You should get one - the chicks love 'em.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

Surely those who have a preference for all religions to be taught, and those who prefer no religion is taught should both be seen as opposing the current situation where only one religion is taught in 95% of schools?

tbh I don't see how the multi-denominational side can automatically grouped with the the no-religion grouping; quite the opposite really.

Even the catholic church is open to multi-denominational education, nor is it alone in seeking that religious instruction given is compatible with its teaching for the offspring of its followers. So all in all its no news really.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Even the catholic church is open to multi-denominational education, nor is it alone in seeking that religious instruction given is compatible with its teaching for the offspring of its followers. So all in all its no news really.

That, I think, is the problem. There is a difference between religious instruction and religious education.

Religious education basically says, "Here is what different people believe. This is why they believe it. This is the influence it has had upon history and upon the shaping of the society in which we live." Religious instruction, however, involves telling kids that certain religious ideas are true, others are false, and so is similar to indoctrination.

If parents want their children to be religiously instructed then they should give such instruction themselves, or take the kids to church to be instructed. If they want a school to provide religious instruction then there is provision under the law for them to set up their own schools (if desired this can be done in cooperation with the Church) and they should be expected to fund such schools out of their own pockets.

However, the responsibility of the State is to provide education, not indoctrination. Tax payers money should not be used to prop up churches under the guise of education.

Tim_Murphy

PDN wrote: »

If the Catholic Church aren't prepared to be involved in these schools under reasonable conditions then that is great. I don't see why any church should be involved in a State school.

Run the school as a nondenominational entity. Of course religion needs to be taught as a subject, but this can be done in a way that is educational rather than indoctrination. Teach the beliefs of different religions, and invite representatives in to answer questions (including someone representing atheism). If the Catholic Church doesn't want to participate then that is their loss.

As for first communion preparation etc - that is up to the Church to sort out, not the school. They can do it in their own time in their own buildings.

Excellent post, agree completely.

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

However, the responsibility of the State is to provide education, not indoctrination. Tax payers money should not be used to prop up churches under the guise of education.

Not so, the responsibility of the state is to do the wishes of the people, which may include religious instruction (which it would appear to be in this country going by the survey referred to earlier).

On a side note, I'd much prefer to see religious instruction given in state schools where at least it can monitored. Religion is and will remain a major force within society. It is therefore both fitting and proper that society should be aware of what is taught and perhaps be in a position to influence what large sections of society are thought. This is why I believe our system is better than the US non-demoninational one.

seamus

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not so, the responsibility of the state is to do the wishes of the people, which may include religious instruction (which it would appear to be in this country going by the survey referred to earlier).

Actually, the constitution requires the state to make education available to all. The wishes of the people are irrelevant.

It just so happened that by letting the RC Church do it back in the forties, the state saved a bundle of money and managed to uphold its constitutional obligations. I very much doubt that Dev actually asked people, "would you like Catholic or non-catholic schooling?", instead he just went ahead with the cheapest option.

The spirit of your comment is correct though - the volume of new schools being built non-denominational seems to reflect the overall attitude of the public.

lostexpectation

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

No, in a nutshell. I acknowledge a system which is far from perfect, but been a pragmatist feel at present the system we have will suffice until such time it can be evolved into more accommodating (if possible) for minorities at a reasonable burden to the taxpayer.

as secular a system as possible would be the system that accommodates mthe widest range of people at a reasonable cost.

i thought I this was a reality based zone

rev hellfire proud muslim faith school advocate