John Waters v Atheist Ireland

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think if you call it an irrelevant red herring, say religion doesn't affect governance and say this is what makes all the difference one more time and it might just stop being horse sh!t. I have backed up my point with examples and evidence, you have simply restated yours ad nauseum as if that makes it right

Religion doesn't affect it directly no. Telling people to vote for a certain political party will. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

I wish just once when we were having a discussion Sam. You haven't cited your example from the Israeli school, I wish you would so I could look it up myself and read the Biblical passage it is referring to for myself.

I just don't agree with you. I think that religious education is a positive for our communities, I also think that secular education could be a positive. The fact that every discussion turns into such smarminess is the reason that I find it difficult to have an open and free discussion with you. I wish it wasn't like this.

Earlier in the thread you say that John Waters' viewpoint has been ripped to shreds on this thread when it clearly hasn't. How can an opinion article be "ripped to shreds"? You can merely disagree with it and state why. Which is fine, we all disagree but we can do so without the constant ring of superiority.

Anyhow, that's me.

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

You haven't cited your example from the Israeli school, I wish you would so I could look it up myself and read the Biblical passage it is referring to for myself.

Here you go Buddy!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61384047&postcount=298

CDfm

[quote=Sam Vimes;61377515]As I said above, you have every right to have a religious school as long as its built, funded and run entirely by the church. The point I made to Jakkass is just as good here:

The government doesn't have to deny religious parents anything but nor does it have to fund them and provide staff to do it, especially when doing so is to the detriment of the type of school they should be providing and is denying the people they're supposed to be helping

In fairness - the constitutional position is that the parents are the natural educators of the children and several other items and the states position is to provide the minimum level with due regard to the religious beliefs of the parents.

Often parents will say -while I do not attend church religious instruction is a good thing.In the same way lots of people do with baptism church weddings etc. Call it a la carte if you like its a cultural thing and what people do.

Here is the Contitutional provisions.

Article 42
42.1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
42.2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
42.3.1 The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
42.3.2 The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
42.4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, particularly in the matter of religious and moral formation.
42.5 In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in the duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

There is nothing wrong with people of secular beliefs and atheists doing their own schools but insofar that it shouldnt interfere with others rights and freedoms. Thats democracy and its written into the constitution and its what we all bought into paying our taxes.

I am one of those who happen to believe that non believers have been a bit short changed. I would like to see the middle ground here -but hey - the debate gets polarised (to borrow a US murder legal term)in a "noose or loose" way. I am not buying that.

NO I dont think we should give those powers to the government.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

The Government decides how to spend the taxes. If they get funded the exact same as all other schools, I can't but see it as fair.

Yes of course except for the fact that the taxes I pay through the nose go to pay for resources that teach religion.

Jakkass wrote: »

The only issue I have with most of you is that I believe all schools which teach the Government cirriculum should be funded.

So do I!

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the Government should allow for freedom of choice in respect to religious education. I've made that fairly clear by now I think.

Easiest way to that = secular education system!

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that faith schools should exist and I think if atheists and agnostics find them disagreeable there should be secular schools as an alternative, but I don't think it is reasonable after having an alternative to stop funding faith schools in the same way.

See my first point.

Jakkass wrote: »

That's my bottom line. I think I have made myself crystal by now.

Yes indeed you have but you don't seem to recognise the problem with your position just so "faith schools can exist".

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: Bear in mind you brought in the political aspect as an irrelevant red herring. I didn't.

You do realise every time you say that you are guilty of the same red herringness.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've already clarified my position on it. Religion does not affect governance it aims to teach people social values, teaching people about a single political party could adversely affect democracy. That's my bottom line on that.

I'd love to know how it feels to think so one dimensionally like that. What you say in bold what part of that has not got to do with politics? Ever hear of the Christian Solidarity Party?

Jakkass wrote: »

Having done that I am out. Nice talking with you, but I've basically said all I can say on the issue by now

Repeatedly.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Religion doesn't affect it directly no. Telling people to vote for a certain political party will. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

You just keep saying that, back it up. If you tell someone that the christian God is real, they are more likely to vote for someone who shares christian values than an atheist or any other religious person. I would have thought that was pretty obvious

Jakkass wrote: »

I wish just once when we were having a discussion Sam. You haven't cited your example from the Israeli school, I wish you would so I could look it up myself and read the Biblical passage it is referring to for myself.
I just don't agree with you. I think that religious education is a positive for our communities, I also think that secular education could be a positive. The fact that every discussion turns into such smarminess is the reason that I find it difficult to have an open and free discussion with you. I wish it wasn't like this.

I wish it too but you've repeatedly ignored my point that not all non-religious ideologies are political, you've changed from saying that the ethos doesn't matter to saying it matters if it's political, you just keep repeating your points without backing them up and calling mine red herrings without backing that up, you've picked an irrelevant difference and acted as if it's important and you've acted as if the source of the Israeli story makes a blind bit of difference. Basically you're doing all the old Jakkass infuriating stuff. It has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, you can look through my posts and find hundreds of arguments that don't go this way with believers and non-believers alike, it has to do with the aforementioned infuriating slipperiness of your debating style.

If you're so desperate for the source, pts mentioned it:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61384047&postcount=298

and it makes me think you were lying about having read the god delusion because if you had you would have known the source, which is why I didn't mention it

Jakkass wrote: »

Earlier in the thread you say that John Waters' viewpoint has been ripped to shreds on this thread when it clearly hasn't. How can an opinion article be "ripped to shreds"? You can merely disagree with it and state why. Which is fine, we all disagree but we can do so without the constant ring of superiority.

It can be ripped to shreds because he used a number of ridiculous logical fallacies such as "my physicist friend is religious and he's smarter than you so ha ha ha" and said a number of things that were simply wrong. I'm of the opinion that he wrote the article before he even went to the meeting and only went to find things to confirm his prejudices

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You do realise every time you say that you are guilty of the same red herringness.

No I don't believe he does unfortunately

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This idea goes against the concept of the separation of church and state, ie it goes against the idea of a secular state. If the state is funding religion, they're not separate

Freedom of choice does not mean providing government funding for every political, religious, social and ethnic group in the country, it just means not preventing them from doing it. And keeping the children separate only encourages sectarianism.

Irish people are not sectarian and the idea that parents should have no say in the religious and moral ethos of their schools is political correctness gone wrong.

I met Ben Briscoe years back ex Govt minister and Jewish and he had gone to catholic schools and was well respected.

I dont think religious communities should be penalised for what they do any more than I feel non believers should be allowed setting up rheir own schools. The Gaelscoil Movement did it in a few decades no problem -what makes non believers so helpless that they can't.

Live and let live.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Irish people are not sectarian and the idea that parents should have no say in the religious and moral ethos of their schools is political correctness gone wrong.

I met Ben Briscoe years back ex Govt minister and Jewish and he had gone to catholic schools and was well respected.

I dont think religious communities should be penalised for what they do any more than I feel non believers should not be prevented in setting up schools. The Gaelscoil Movement did it in a few decades no problem -what makes non believers so helpless that they can't.

It's really not PC gone wrong. We are a secular society and people should not be allowed use schools to pass on their agenda to children. Schools are for teaching facts

Sam Vimes

Sorry forgot to add, as long as they're funded by the state. If they're paying for it themselves they can teach that the sky is green for all I care. It's a free country but free as in free speech, not free beer and not free "passing on your own ideology to children in the guise of schooling" either

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really not PC gone wrong. We are a secular society and people should not be allowed use schools to pass on their agenda to children. Schools are for teaching facts

Ahem -we are not really secular we are multi-denominational.

Probably a bit more than some people like to think.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry forgot to add, as long as they're funded by the state. If they're paying for it themselves they can teach that the sky is green for all I care. It's a free country but free as in free speech, not free beer and not free "passing on your own ideology to children in the guise of schooling" either

State funding is for the common weal. You are an atheist so there is nothiung stopping you and others laying the groundwork organising etc secular schools.

It goes back to my point that lots of people dont practise and are a la carte christians for certain events but that doesnt mean they want religous and moral issues removed from the schools.

The Constitution allows for religious belief to be passed on or not as the case may be.

I support initiatives for secular schools but not at the expense at removing the option for religious schools too.

I think you want a quick fix.There is room for both.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Religion does not affect governance it aims to teach people social values, teaching people about a single political party could adversely affect democracy. That's my bottom line on that.

Another point on this: are you that blinded by your desire to pass on your unproven ideology to children before they know any better that you can say with a straight face that social values, whether christian or otherwise have no effect on governance? That the values of society do not affect the governments that they vote in or the way the government, who come from the same society, govern?

I suppose it's fine because your ideology is the "right" one, which is the real reason you want it taught in schools and is exactly the reason it shouldn't be

994

CDfm wrote: »

The education issue is quite seperate. The history of it is well known that religious communities provided eductation when the state did not or subsequently did not have the resourses to.

I agree that the educational establishment in ireland is very mixed up and agree there should be freedom to have non religious education options.

But thats a seperate issue to this thread really and does not seem tohave been reported on..

Teachers' salaries were still paid by the state, and the religious orders only got their money by collecting it from parishioners. Fact is, the Irish government could have established non-religious schools but were afraid to.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Ahem -we are not really secular we are multi-denominational.

Probably a bit more than some people like to think.



State funding is for the common weal. You are an atheist so there is nothiung stopping you and others laying the groundwork organising etc secular schools.

It goes back to my point that lots of people dont practise and are a la carte christians for certain events but that doesnt mean they want religous and moral issues removed from the schools.

The Constitution allows for religious belief to be passed on or not as the case may be.

I support initiatives for secular schools but not at the expense at removing the option for religious schools too.

I think you want a quick fix.There is room for both.

It's not that there's room for both, I don't object to state funded religious schools because it's to the detriment of secular ones, although that is a factor

I object to state funded religious schools because schools are for teaching facts, they are not for teaching unproven ideologies as if they were facts. I suppose I'll ask you the same question I asked Jakkass because you won't use a ridiculous reason to dismiss the idea

Would you like the government to support a school that taught the curriculum in exchange for getting the opportunity to teach that global warning doesn't exist or that the earth is 6000 years old or that black people are inferior or that socialism is better than capitalism or that catholicism is true and islam is false?

All unproven ideologies, all things that should not be taught in schools imo

CDfm

994 wrote: »

Teachers' salaries were still paid by the state, and the religious orders only got their money by collecting it from parishioners. Fact is, the Irish government could have established non-religious schools but were afraid to.

I think you are looking at it based on todays standards.

Back in those days you even had the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes to raise money to build hospitals and medical facilities. There were no public funds to do it.

No money to do it 994 we were a very poor agrarian country - the reality we knew we couldnt afford it unlike now.

mackerski

CDfm wrote: »

Ahem -we are not really secular we are multi-denominational.

I respectfully (for now) disagree. We have never been usefully multi-denominational. We have a history of overt religion, and since the foundation of the state that has always been one specific religion. As society advanced and external influences crept in, we have indeed become a secular society with plenty of reminders of how things used to be. Examples of these hangovers:

• Non-believing parents sending Johnny for his Communion so he isn't left out
• A state that thinks it's fair not to bother running state schools because most people "are Catholic anyway"
• Lots of healthcare infrastructure with religious involvement
• The Angelus on RTE
• Atheists claiming to be Roman Catholic on census day

Amusingly, it's precisely because these oddities are seen as non-intrusive by the relaxed Irish that they are still tolerated. Cheerleaders for religion (especially that of the Roman kind) sometimes mistake this indifference for approval. Meanwhile those of us atheists who have sufficient respect for other religions that we won't pretend to belong to them just to fit in have to tolerate a system of government which points to the can't-be-arsed majority as justification for its failure to cater for our educational needs.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not that there's room for both, I don't object to state funded religious schools because it's to the detriment of secular ones, although that is a factor

I object to state funded religious schools because schools are for teaching facts, they are not for teaching unproven ideologies as if they were facts. I suppose I'll ask you the same question I asked Jakkass because you won't use a ridiculous reason to dismiss the idea

The majority of Christians throughout the world believe in a rational world where the world obeys the laws of science. You have some creationists somewhere who might believe otherwise but show me a school in Ireland that teaches that. They dont.

Would you like the government to support a school that taught the curriculum in exchange for getting the opportunity to teach that global warning doesn't exist or that the earth is 6000 years old or that black people are inferior or that socialism is better than capitalism or that catholicism is true and islam is false?

Yes I would like to see to see schools teach reading too;)

SundayIndependent September 30 2007

More than half-a-million Irish people between the ages of 16 and 64 suffered under this huge disadvantage. It is a disadvantage which psychologists acknowledge can induce states of helpless rage leading to uncontrollable fits of violence. (Indeed, the percentage of inmates in all of our prisons who are unable to read and write is way above the national average.)
The horrifying figure of 24 per cent adult illiteracy was first published in an OECD survey in 1996, and put us close to the bottom of the international league. (In Europe, only Poland scored worse than we did.)

All unproven ideologies, all things that should not be taught in schools imo

I think religion being taught in schools comes down a long list of priorities to reading being taught in schools. So much for a minimum standard of education guaranteed under the constitution.

I dont think religous teaching in schools is that advanced either!!!

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

The majority of Christians throughout the world believe in a rational world where the world obeys the laws of science. You have some creationists somewhere who might believe otherwise but show me a school in Ireland that teaches that. They dont.

I know they don't, that wasn't my point. However, they do teach from the perspective that the christian god exists and what he says goes as far as morality and society. Sure they might mention other religions but not as if they are true. Teaching christian values as if they're the best, disapproval of homosexuality and all, is no different to teaching that socialism is the best ideology or that black people are inferior. Opinion is being taught as fact. Schools should be objective and not teach that one particular religion's version of morality is the best one

CDfm wrote: »

I think religion being taught in schools comes down a long list of priorities to reading being taught in schools. So much for a minimum standard of education guaranteed under the constitution.

I dont think religous teaching in schools is that advanced either!!!

To be blunt, teaching one particular religion to children as true over all others is not education, it's indoctrination just as it would be if they were teaching that any other ideology is the best one. Teaching children about ideologies is fine but they should be allowed make up their own mind without being coaxed towards accepting the ideology of their teachers

Sam Vimes

Bear in mind that I don't think no morality should be taught to kids but morality does not require religion

Children should be taught not to hurt others because they wouldn't like it done to them, not because god says so. That's real morality

CDfm

mackerski wrote: »

I respectfully (for now) disagree. We have never been usefully multi-denominational. We have a history of overt religion, and since the foundation of the state that has always been one specific religion. As society advanced and external influences crept in, we have indeed become a secular society with plenty of reminders of how things used to be. Examples of these hangovers:

• Non-believing parents sending Johnny for his Communion so he isn't left out
• A state that thinks it's fair not to bother running state schools because most people "are Catholic anyway"
• Lots of healthcare infrastructure with religious involvement
• The Angelus on RTE
• Atheists claiming to be Roman Catholic on census day

Amusingly, it's precisely because these oddities are seen as non-intrusive by the relaxed Irish that they are still tolerated. Cheerleaders for religion (especially that of the Roman kind) sometimes mistake this indifference for approval. Meanwhile those of us atheists who have sufficient respect for other religions that we won't pretend to belong to them just to fit in have to tolerate a system of government which points to the can't-be-arsed majority as justification for its failure to cater for our educational needs.

Here is what the US State Department say

Religious Freedom > 2004 Report on International Religious Freedom > Europe and Eurasia Ireland
International Religious Freedom Report 2004

Section I. Religious Demography

The country has a total area of 27,136 square miles, and has a population of approximately 4 million.

The country is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. According to official government statistics collected during the 2002 census, the religious affiliation of the population is 88.4 percent Roman Catholic, 2.9 percent Church of Ireland (Anglican), 0.52 percent Presbyterian, 0.25 percent Methodist, 0.49 percent Muslim, and less than 0.1 percent Jewish. Approximately 4 percent of the population were members of other religions or had no specific religious belief.

According to the Census(2002) 88.4% claimed Roman Catholic affiliation.You have to accept that. Atheists and others was 4% and i havent seen any atheist pogroms.

Those are the facts and whether you like it or not those who are not affiliated thats what majority rule does.

With a population of less than 0.1% of the total (4000 approx) you have a Jewish School Stratford College in Rathgar -so it can be done.

It might take commitment to build what you want but its not impossible - so there is a sufficient population of atheists and others to organise a school or schools in Dublin so why dont they.Do they want to really bother?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Here is what the US State Department say


According to the Census 88.4% claimed Roman Catholic affiliation.You have to accept that. Atheists and others was 4% and i havent seen any atheist pogroms.

Those are the facts and whether you like it or not those who are not affiliated thats what majority rule does.

With a population of less than 0.1% you have a Jewish School Stratford College in Rathgar -so it can be done.

It might take commitment to build what you want but its not impossible - so there is a sufficient population of atheists and others to organise a school orv schools in Dublin so why dont they.

In a country where separation of church and state is considered extremely important it doesn't matter if everyone in the country is the one religion, it's still kept out of schools and politics. If you go to any other secular nation and tell them that 95% of schools are run by the church they'd look at you like you've ten heads. Secular education is the norm everywhere else and religion gets taught elsewhere such as Sunday school in America, as it should be

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you go to any other secular nation and tell them that 95% of schools are run by the church they'd look at you like you've ten heads.

You might have 10 heads but 88% of the population have more votes and its a democracy so give the peopole what they want and Im sure they are not bothered. I thought I covered the issue of Ireland being secular and the constitution. You might like it to be but thats not what the peopole say or at least 96% of them.

Secular education is the norm everywhere else and religion gets taught elsewhere such as Sunday school in America, as it should be

Thats America and they can do what they want. They elected George W Bush so you wouldnt want to do everything they do.

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

I dont think religious communities should be penalised for what they do any more than I feel non believers should be allowed setting up rheir own schools. The Gaelscoil Movement did it in a few decades no problem -what makes non believers so helpless that they can't.

Live and let live.

The question isn't really about the state allowing or not allowing groups to set up schools. It’s about the kind of school system that the state itself should be providing.

If we were starting from scratch, we certainly wouldn't design the school system that we have now, so why just accept the status quo? Why should people that are not in the dominant religion feel that they have to set up their own schools or send their kids out of their locality to get an education?

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

You might have 10 heads but 88% of the population have more votes and its a democracy so give the peopole what they want and Im sure they are not bothered

The people do want changes to the system
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0630/1214764288106.html

CDfm

dvpower wrote: »

The people do want changes to the system
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0630/1214764288106.html

newspapers arent counted in elections or in the census. Thats anecdotal and your link doesnt work.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

You might have 10 heads but 88% of the population have more votes and its a democracy so give the peopole what they want and Im sure they are not bothered



Thats America and they can do what they want. They elected George W Bush so you wouldnt want to do everything they do.

Exactly, it's a democracy, not a theocracy. In a democracy the majority get their way in pretty much everything except religion. It's one of the most important aspects of a secular society, that religion is a private matter and not for the government to fund

And it's not just America, it's every other nation in the world that understands what "secular state" means. A state where 95% of schools are owned by one religion and funded by the state, and especially one where those schools are allowed refuse children of other religions, is effectively a theocracy

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

newspapers arent counted in elections or in the census. Thats anecdotal and your link doesnt work.

Anyway. Just because 88.4% of people claim to be Catholic it doesn't follow that 88.4% of people want their children's education to be provided by church managed schools.

Now I know that opinion poll results can be open to interpretation, but one carried out by RedC last year for the Irish Primary Principals' Network found that:

When given the choice the great majority of parents (72%) would prefer to see schools run by the state with equal status and opportunity for all religions.

This, of course, doesn't mean that people want a full seperation of church and state in education, but it does suggest that people aren't satisfied with the status quo.

mackerski

CDfm wrote: »

Those are the facts and whether you like it or not those who are not affiliated thats what majority rule does.

"Majority rule" is a fairly offensive term to introduce into a thread regarding whether I have the right to have my tax contributions fund a schools suitable for my children and not just one suitable for those of my religious (actual or proclaimed) neighbours. It was attitudes like this that had us in the dark ages into the 60s.

Our society is no longer defined by religion, religion is something those who choose to seek it engage in in their own time without injury to others. Defending a monopoly on primary schools is, BTW, not possible without injury to others.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly, it's a democracy, not a theocracy. In a democracy the majority get their way in pretty much everything except religion.

And it's not just America, it's every other nation in the world that understands what "secular state" means. A state where 95% of schools are owned by one religion and funded by the state, and especially one where those schools are allowed refuse children of other religions, is effectively a theocracy

Isnt democracy great:)

dvpower wrote: »

Anyway. Just because 88.4% of people claim to be Catholic it doesn't follow that 88.4% of people want their children's education to be provided by church managed schools.

Its what they say -so why not believe them.

Now I know that opinion poll results can be open to interpretation, but one carried out by RedC last year for the Irish Primary Principals' Network found that:

This, of course, doesn't mean that people want a full seperation of church and state in education, but it does suggest that people aren't satisfied with the status quo.

It also suggests that people dont want a fully secular alternatives. my kids have been taught about various religious beliefs in school and thats fairly multi-faith. The findings seem to indicate support for teaching religion and moral values that way has support.

mackerski wrote: »

"Majority rule" is a fairly offensive term to introduce into a thread regarding whether I have the right to have my tax contributions fund a schools suitable for my children and not just one suitable for those of my religious (actual or proclaimed) neighbours. It was attitudes like this that had us in the dark ages into the 60s.

So even though the majority are tolerant of the minority and the minority have the right of self determination the majority should bend to the will of the minority.

So should the majority refuse to fund single parents too .

Our society is no longer defined by religion, religion is something those who choose to seek it engage in in their own time without injury to others. Defending a monopoly on primary schools is, BTW, not possible without injury to others.

Are you sure people want change?

Well the 4% of population gives you a population around the size of Cork City something around 160,000 - so whats to stop those who want non denominational schoolsw setting up a few of their own.

The Jewish population have a school, the Muslims have schools,the Church of Ireland have schools other religions have schools with not much of a population. So if they can organise why cant the atheists and humanists etc. It doesnt make sense -if they can do it why cant you..

dvpower

Just because 88.4% of people claim to be Catholic it doesn't follow that 88.4% of people want their children's education to be provided by church managed schools.

CDfm wrote: »

Its what they say -so why not believe them.

I would, if you would just provide some evidence that 88.4% of people want their children's education to be provided by church managed schools.

CDfm wrote: »

It also suggests that people dont want a fully secular alternatives. my kids have been taught about various religious beliefs in school and thats fairly multi-faith. The findings seem to indicate support for teaching religion and moral values that way has support.

You may be missing the point. I have no objection whatsoever to teaching kids about various religious beliefs. It is teaching that these beliefs are true that I object to.

dvpower

CDfm wrote: »

The Jewish population have a school, the Muslims have schools,the Church of Ireland have schools other religions have schools with not much of a population. So if they can organise why cant the atheists and humanists etc. It doesnt make sense -if they can do it why cant you..

Wouldn't it be better if we had a system where all the children could attend the same schools and the schools could provide their facilities out of teaching hours for religious instruction.

We're not looking for a banishment of religion; just a system where everyone can be accomodated and where no particular group is favoured by the state.