Removing religious influence from schools not in my remit, says Minister

pljudge321

moretothegirl wrote: »

I have never really had anything to do with this situation so I am unaware of what is the norm, but can you clarify to me that what your saying is the schools refuse entry to children who are not baptised? because I have certainly never heard of this in my own local area... Sure all church-run schools have many children of other religions who just choose not to part take in the religion system being taught.... how were they allowed enter if thats the case?

I think an example is the best way to explain what the schools are legally allowed to do. Lets imagine a small town in mayo that has experienced a surge in population over the past ten years. In the town there are 30 children about to start school. Of the 30 there are 15 "catholic" children (I fail to see how you can label a small child with a religion, but thats another debate), 5 protestant children, 5 non-religious children, 3 muslim children and 2 mormons.

The local school is run by some order of nuns with the matron sitting as head of the school board. The nearest other school is also catholic and is ten miles away. The school only has places for 25 children and is funded almost completely by the parents of the children in the town through their taxes. All the children are entered for enrollment by their parents. The last five children to have been placed on the list are all catholic. The logical and fair way to determine who gets into the school is to simply operate a first come first served system, after all, all of the parents are contributing to the running of the school.

Unfortunately the matron decides to uphold the ethos of the school and give the last five catholic children preferential treatment and a mormon, a protestant and three non-religious children are told they will not be able to come to the school. The other catholic school which is ten miles away accommodates two of them. The parents of these children are annoyed at the inconvenience but decide to deal with it for the sake of their children's education. The other three parents lodge a complaint to the school board and are passed off to the minister for education. He points at a part of education act and faffs them off. They now have to travel 20 miles each day to another school in an area where the demand for school places is not quite so high.

Back in the school two of the non-religious children sit in on the religion classes in the school and one becomes quite emotionally traumatised by some of the things the rest of the class is being told that they find quite hard to be reconcile with what their parents have taught her. She is quite scared by the concepts and her father explains to her that they are all stories and make believe. She subsequently starts telling this to the other children, one of the more staunch catholic teachers hears this and reports it to the principal. The father is dragged in and explained how lucky his daughter is to have been 'accommodated' in the school and to sort the problem out because it cannot continue.

The four protestant, two muslim and mormon child leave the classroom during each religion class and sit in another classroom where the are essentially ignored and told to do homework. This gets worse as religion gets more frequent during 2nd & 6th class. It also sets these children up for potential singling out by the rest of class, after all by separating them from the rest of the class the school recognizes them as different. It also denies them valuable teaching time.

Now I ask you this, is any of what happens in this scenario fair? After all all of the parents in the town are paying for the school. Sure I made the entire thing up and non of it may hold true for what happens in your local community. But it could happen, and that alone is reason for changing things. Their are numerous threads in the A&A forum detailing problems and concerns of parents worrying about these very issues. Ireland is becoming more and more multi-cultural, catholicism is on the decline, the problem will become more and more exacerbated as the years go on.

Also you said "It is a personal decision adults must make for themselves and I think children would suffer if it was taken from the schools as I think many would remain unexposed to any form of religion and then if they decide to turn to religion when they are an adult I think they would resent the fact that they had not been given the opportunities to make their communion/confirmation as children."

How about those of us who resent having to make our communion/confirmation as children in order to receive the education we ourselves are funding?

pljudge321

moretothegirl wrote: »

Since we are living in a nation that has very strong christian links then obviously either roman catholic church or church of ireland. and before anyone jumps down my neck of living in the now and ireland being a different country now, i think it would be a very drastic decision to sever the ties between the church and state/education as it runs deep into our history for hundreds of years and who are you to decide it is time to cut that link now and undo all that work when there are still plenty of people who are happy to have this connection?

I think the way forward is the educate together schools, there should be a choice there. The answer is not simply to cut religion out as I know many adults want their children to be taught religion. Sometimes it isnt even about the religion itself but the basic principles that religion teaches us, ie. to be a good person, treat people well, try to live a good life etc.

The bible also tells you to kill everyone in a town if a single one of them is an atheist. It also tells you that you will burn in the fiery pit of hell if you are a homosexual. You can't cherry pick parts that you like. Religion has claimed a monopoly on morality for centuries but how do you pick which part of the bible to obey?

If parents want to teach their kids about religion and for them to make their communion/confirmation they should do it themselves rather then expecting the state to pay for teachers to do it to the denigration of other childrens education.

Mike 1972

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ignorance is always a bad thing. Why shouldn't schools teach about religions?

Bit of a difference between schools teaching about religions and schoolkids recieving religion no ?

Even in a 100% secularised education system kids would learn about different religions and the differences between them. It would come up in history (reformation, crusades etc) there would also probably be one or more modules on the civics/social studies/whatever its called nowadays curriculum

moretothegirl wrote: »

Since we are living in a nation that has very strong christian links .

Historically maybe. Not necessairly the case now

moretothegirl wrote: »

then obviously either roman catholic church or church of ireland. .

Why not Presbyterian ?, Methodist ? Jewish ?

moretothegirl wrote: »

i think it would be a very drastic decision to sever the ties between the church and state/education as it runs deep into our history for hundreds of years .

Hardly a good enough reason

moretothegirl wrote: »

and who are you to decide it is time to cut that link now and undo all that work when there are still plenty of people who are happy to have this connection?

Because there are plenty of people who are not........

moretothegirl wrote: »

I think the way forward is the educate together schools, there should be a choice there. .

The majority of the country is more than an hours drive from an ET school

moretothegirl wrote: »

I know many adults want their children to be taught religion.

Let them do it themselves then or send them to Sunday (Friday/Saturday) School

moretothegirl wrote: »

Sometimes it isnt even about the religion itself but the basic principles that religion teaches us, ie. to be a good person, treat people well, try to live a good life etc.

Sure if kids are brought up without religion theyre bound to start eating babies or something ?

pljudge321 wrote: »

The four protestant, two muslim and mormon child leave the classroom during each religion class and sit in another classroom where the are essentially ignored and told to do homework. This gets worse as religion gets more frequent during 2nd & 6th class. It also sets these children up for potential singling out by the rest of class, after all by separating them from the rest of the class the school recognizes them as different. It also denies them valuable teaching time.

It goes deeper than this. In "Catholic Education" (oxymoron ?) the religion stuff isint confined to religious class. It is supposed to pervade the entire curriculum. Thus the non-Catholic kids will have to go to assembly (largely religious) maybe have to hail someone called Mary at the beginning of Maths and French class while sitting in a classroom with statues/crucifixes/religious posters on the walls etc

moretothegirl

pljudge321 wrote: »

I think an example is the best way to explain what the schools are legally allowed to do. Lets imagine a small town in mayo that has experienced a surge in population over the past ten years. In the town there are 30 children about to start school. Of the 30 there are 15 "catholic" children (I fail to see how you can label a small child with a religion, but thats another debate), 5 protestant children, 5 non-religious children, 3 muslim children and 2 mormons.

The local school is run by some order of nuns with the matron sitting as head of the school board. The nearest other school is also catholic and is ten miles away. The school only has places for 25 children and is funded almost completely by the parents of the children in the town through their taxes. All the children are entered for enrollment by their parents. The last five children to have been placed on the list are all catholic. The logical and fair way to determine who gets into the school is to simply operate a first come first served system, after all, all of the parents are contributing to the running of the school.

Unfortunately the matron decides to uphold the ethos of the school and give the last five catholic children preferential treatment and a mormon, a protestant and three non-religious children are told they will not be able to come to the school. The other catholic school which is ten miles away accommodates two of them. The parents of these children are annoyed at the inconvenience but decide to deal with it for the sake of their children's education. The other three parents lodge a complaint to the school board and are passed off to the minister for education. He points at a part of education act and faffs them off. They now have to travel 20 miles each day to another school in an area where the demand for school places is not quite so high.

Back in the school two of the non-religious children sit in on the religion classes in the school and one becomes quite emotionally traumatised by some of the things the rest of the class is being told that they find quite hard to be reconcile with what their parents have taught her. She is quite scared by the concepts and her father explains to her that they are all stories and make believe. She subsequently starts telling this to the other children, one of the more staunch catholic teachers hears this and reports it to the principal. The father is dragged in and explained how lucky his daughter is to have been 'accommodated' in the school and to sort the problem out because it cannot continue.

The four protestant, two muslim and mormon child leave the classroom during each religion class and sit in another classroom where the are essentially ignored and told to do homework. This gets worse as religion gets more frequent during 2nd & 6th class. It also sets these children up for potential singling out by the rest of class, after all by separating them from the rest of the class the school recognizes them as different. It also denies them valuable teaching time.

Now I ask you this, is any of what happens in this scenario fair? After all all of the parents in the town are paying for the school. Sure I made the entire thing up and non of it may hold true for what happens in your local community. But it could happen, and that alone is reason for changing things. Their are numerous threads in the A&A forum detailing problems and concerns of parents worrying about these very issues. Ireland is becoming more and more multi-cultural, catholicism is on the decline, the problem will become more and more exacerbated as the years go on.

Also you said "It is a personal decision adults must make for themselves and I think children would suffer if it was taken from the schools as I think many would remain unexposed to any form of religion and then if they decide to turn to religion when they are an adult I think they would resent the fact that they had not been given the opportunities to make their communion/confirmation as children."

How about those of us who resent having to make our communion/confirmation as children in order to receive the education we ourselves are funding?

First off I definitely think it should be first come first served, I will admit I am unaware of the situation so I won't say that what your telling me is bull, I will admit I am shocked that that case could happen though. I completely agree that that should not be allowed happen under any circumstances. I have my beliefs, but I would NEVER think that because I am baptised that I am in any way more important than anybody else baptised or non baptised.

I understand your point, I really do. However, it seems like an issue in which someone will always be left unhappy as I still feel there are many people who wish religion to stay part of the school so the question is who do we alienate, the people who have chosen not to take part in any religion, or those who want religion in school? There are no easy answers to this.

This is why I stated that I think the Educate Together schools are the way forward, they need to be supported more and more need to be set up. This will enable choice within communities.

moretothegirl

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Bit of a difference between schools teaching about religions and schoolkids recieving religion no ?

Even in a 100% secularised education system kids would learn about different religions and the differences between them. It would come up in history (reformation, crusades etc) there would also probably be one or more modules on the civics/social studies/whatever its called nowadays curriculum

That curiculum you mention would all be second level (perhaps late primary school)... what about the younger children?

I think religion taught in primary school is so basic that to me it is more about the idea that the kids can believe in this lovely ideal story of jesus, baby jesus being born etc. I think it is nice for them to be taught to pray when they are feeling sad etc. Religion at this level never goes into great detail or depth and it isnt about saying the rosary every night before you sleep. It is more about teaching children to try be good people, it is never about sinning and being punished etc.

pljudge321

moretothegirl wrote: »

First off I definitely think it should be first come first served, I will admit I am unaware of the situation so I won't say that what your telling me is bull, I will admit I am shocked that that case could happen though. I completely agree that that should not be allowed happen under any circumstances. I have my beliefs, but I would NEVER think that because I am baptised that I am in any way more important than anybody else baptised or non baptised.

I understand your point, I really do. However, it seems like an issue in which someone will always be left unhappy as I still feel there are many people who wish religion to stay part of the school so the question is who do we alienate, the people who have chosen not to take part in any religion, or those who want religion in school? There are no easy answers to this.

This is why I stated that I think the Educate Together schools are the way forward, they need to be supported more and more need to be set up. This will enable choice within communities.

I agree that the educate schools are part of the way forward. However they are an entity whose existence should never had to have been realised. Also it is unreasonable to provide a second alternate school in every community, we can barely fund the current education system, doubly the number of primary school will hardly help.

The first step will be a change to the education act preventing any school which receives state funds from discriminating on religious grounds under the current grounds of having an ethos. The second will be a constitutional amendment deleting a single "for", obliging the state to provide an educational to all children.

Even at that we are still faced with the very serious issues that will still be faced in the majority of catholic schools that are state funded. There may no longer be discrimination for entry but there will be segregation and educational discrimination of non-catholic children. This is especially serious in our primary schools.

Ultimately the only way forward will be to eventually compulsory purchase the majority of schools in the country, some could be provided as part of a reparation package if the church is opened up for liability for past crimes, though I doubt the workability/legality of this approach.

I'm not opposed to catholic schools, I went to them and I turned out alright. I just feel we as a society cannot countenance entrusting the education of our children to what is essentially a foreign power.

Mike 1972

moretothegirl wrote: »

I think religion taught in primary school is so basic that to me it is more about the idea that the kids can believe in this lovely ideal story of jesus, baby jesus being born etc. I think it is nice for them to be taught to pray when they are feeling sad etc.

Isint this what parents are for ?

moretothegirl wrote: »

First off I definitely think it should be first come first served.

How is "first come first served" fair to kids whose parents had to change address (perhaps for work reasons) when the child is say three. When other parents might be enrolling their kids before theyre even born ?

Nevyn

moretothegirl wrote: »

That curiculum you mention would all be second level (perhaps late primary school)... what about the younger children?

I think religion taught in primary school is so basic that to me it is more about the idea that the kids can believe in this lovely ideal story of jesus, baby jesus being born etc. I think it is nice for them to be taught to pray when they are feeling sad etc. Religion at this level never goes into great detail or depth and it isnt about saying the rosary every night before you sleep. It is more about teaching children to try be good people, it is never about sinning and being punished etc.

Then why have I had my non christian daughter come home from school upset cos she was full of sin as she was never baptised and worried that we were all going to hell?

Why did she have home work of english spellings which were the words
mysteries, joyful, sorrowful and decade?

Why was her art in class to color in a stain glass window with jesus on it?

Why is her music in class having to learn religious songs?

Why is she taugth 2 times 4 is 8 and there is only one god and anyone who says other wise is wrong?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/education/primary-and-post-primary-education/going-to-primary-school/ownership-of-primary-schools

Seems like you need to learn about how primary schools are set up under the patronage system, the cachement area is the parish boundaries, the head of the board of management the parish priest, that the enroll ment policy favours children baptised in the parish first, then those baptised else where, then non catholic christian children and then children who are 'other' and in that order.

Also the schools can legally discriminate and not hire teachers who are active Catholics and teachers can be dismissed if comes to the attention of the board of management they are not living in accordance to catholic ideals.

partyatmygaff

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Isint this what parents are for ?

Parents are also meant to teach their kids manners and respect. Looking at some of the people born after lets say 2000, I think its safe to say thats not being taught as well as it used to be taught.

In any case, religious segregation should end. Schools shouldn't be biased towards any religion yet they should teach the basics of all the many different religions just like what's done in secondary school.

wild_cat

moretothegirl wrote: »

That curiculum you mention would all be second level (perhaps late primary school)... what about the younger children?

I think religion taught in primary school is so basic that to me it is more about the idea that the kids can believe in this lovely ideal story of jesus, baby jesus being born etc. I think it is nice for them to be taught to pray when they are feeling sad etc. Religion at this level never goes into great detail or depth and it isnt about saying the rosary every night before you sleep. It is more about teaching children to try be good people, it is never about sinning and being punished etc.

Your post just made me remember something...

I was thought creationism in 3rd class. This would have only been 12/13 years ago. I'm getting angry thinking about it, not once was Darwin mentioned.

pljudge321

Mike 1972 wrote: »

How is "first come first served" fair to kids whose parents had to change address (perhaps for work reasons) when the child is say three. When other parents might be enrolling their kids before theyre even born ?

Never really thought about that, I assume you'd advocate a lottery system then. Ideally we'd like an education system that could actually fit everyone.

moretothegirl

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Isint this what parents are for ?



How is "first come first served" fair to kids whose parents had to change address (perhaps for work reasons) when the child is say three. When other parents might be enrolling their kids before theyre even born ?

well what do you propose then? what other system could work out who gets places when say 30 are looking for a place with only 25 available. Of course it should be first come first served, but i dont mean in the sense of first to the community i mean as in first who approach the school to have the childs name placed on the list.

anyways Im only stating my opinion on the matter here. your all entitled to your own and im not preaching to you in anyway (although certain people here do seem to be trying to preach to me)... doesnt bother me in the slightest... Ive stated my opinion and for what its worth I think anyone who wants church and education seperated shouldnt hold their breath because i very much doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

only time will tell so we'll see. I would like to see a solution that offers choice to everyone. I was brought up in a catholic school and I personally want my children to recieve the same integrated religion/education system. I understand others feel differently and its sad that there doesnt seem to be an option for many people in that situation. Thats just a sad part of life I guess and I genuinly do feel for those situations where a child is non christian but has to go to a christian school... I guess it boils down to life just not being fair sometimes, goodnight folks

Mike 1972

moretothegirl wrote: »

well what do you propose then? what other system could work out who gets places when say 30 are looking for a place with only 25 available.

Actually having those 30 places available maybe ?

Of course this would require a certain amount of planning and joined up thinking like when a local authority zones an area for 4,000 new houses someone thinking "hey maybe it might be a good idea to build a couple of schools there" ????

Planning ? Joined up thinking ? In Ireland I very much doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

partyatmygaff

wild_cat wrote: »

Your post just made me remember something...

I was thought creationism in 3rd class. This would have only been 12/13 years ago. I'm getting angry thinking about it, not once was Darwin mentioned.

I was taught evolution in 3rd class and I went to a catholic school. That was about 7 years ago. We even went on a trip to some kind of biology talk in Dublin, I hardly remember any of it though. I remember she told us what theory meant and how evolution has some evidence but it can't be proven and made an absolute fact.

Dionysus

rohatch wrote: »

It is the perfect time to remove the church.

It is. I agree 100%. I couldn't be more serious.

rohatch wrote: »

They never should have been allowed to get into such a position but this is Ireland.

This is where you are not being faithful to historical reality or contexts. In the 1830s, when the national school system was established, it was unfortunately a choice of Catholic education, which by the later 19th century became much more ultramontane/Roman Catholic than Irish Catholic, or British Protestant education under the guise of the explicitly sectarian and anti-Catholic British state education system.(still today, a Catholic is forbidden from becoming head of the British state [under the Act of Settlement in 1701])

Your argument would be much stronger if you could show some historical empathy on this issue.

pljudge321

moretothegirl wrote: »

That curiculum you mention would all be second level (perhaps late primary school)... what about the younger children?

I think religion taught in primary school is so basic that to me it is more about the idea that the kids can believe in this lovely ideal story of jesus, baby jesus being born etc. I think it is nice for them to be taught to pray when they are feeling sad etc. Religion at this level never goes into great detail or depth and it isnt about saying the rosary every night before you sleep. It is more about teaching children to try be good people, it is never about sinning and being punished etc.

Where in the nativity story do you find any morality? Apart from Joseph caring for a woman who is carrying a child who's not his which is a bit adult themed for five year old.

Also it is much better to encourage your child to talk to you if they are feeling sad rather then out sourcing it to the god you have decided they believe in.

pljudge321

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Actually having those 30 places available maybe ?

With a constitutional amendment the state would be legally obliged to make those 30 places available, the church is under no such obligation currently.

moretothegirl

wild_cat wrote: »

Your post just made me remember something...

I was thought creationism in 3rd class. This would have only been 12/13 years ago. I'm getting angry thinking about it, not once was Darwin mentioned.

as a person who stuidied archaeology that would greatly annoy me lol but i guess we can all single our ridiculous scenarios similar to that that may not have anything to do with the church at all. did you read the other post on this forum about stupid things you were taught in school?plenty of ridiculous things taught by teachers, not nuns/priests.

Im not sure if iv mentioned this before but my view is that the schools should be connected to the church, but i dont necessarily feel the teachers should all be nuns and priests. my local school is catholic run, was originally run by the nuns but now is all fully qualified teachers... yet it still has the strong catholic element to it. I feel that is the way it should be. I dont think that being a nun or priest entiles you to teach children education. but I personally feel they are a welcoming and warm presence regarding the religious aspects such as when they go to mass etc. or the odd visit in class from the local priest.

moretothegirl

pljudge321 wrote: »

With a constitutional amendment the state would be legally obliged to make those 30 places available, the church is under no such obligation currently.

in an ideal world there would be places for all thirty, but thats not how it is in the real world. and its not any of the schools faults as they dont have the resources because of government cutbacks etc. they can only accept a certain number of children, it isnt an open ended number. they are legally only allowed a certain amount because of teacher numbers, space etc. so when you have 30 kids applying, with only 25 places I feel the only fair way is first come first served.... not ideal i know but just how it is.

Mike 1972

Dionysus wrote: »

In the 1830s, when the national (???)school system was established, it was unfortunately a choice of Catholic education, which by the later 19th century became much more ultramontane/Roman Catholic than Irish Catholic, or British Protestant education under the guise of the explicitly sectarian and anti-Catholic British state education system.(still today, a Catholic is forbidden from becoming head of the British state [under the Act of Settlement in 1701]).

Im suprised it took this long for someone to blame the Brits :rolleyes:

Its almost 180 years since 1830. Ireland has been independent for almost half this time and have had more than enough time to sort it out.

Dionysus

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Im suprised it took this long for someone to blame the Brits :rolleyes:

Its almost 180 years since 1830. Ireland has been independent for almost half this time and have had more than enough time to sort it out.

Yes, indeed; a fine grasp of history you have there. The new state should have just confiscated all Catholic Church property on 6 December 1922? Is that, really, what you are contending? Would you contend the same about their relationship to the British state at the same time?

Dionysus

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Its almost 180 years since 1830. Ireland has been independent for almost half this time and have had more than enough time to sort it out.

And if you have a problem with my saying the National School system was established in the 1830s, and you clearly do, then you should really disengage from any discussion on this issue that is based upon facts.

The National School system was set up in 1831, to be precise. This is easily verifiable.

Mike 1972

Dionysus wrote: »

And if you have a problem with my saying the National School system was established in the 1830s and you clearly do

Where did I say that ?......Oh nevermind

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

why do people want to remove the church?

Mike 1972

TEMPLAR KNIGHT wrote: »

why do people want to remove the church?

Have you been reading the thread ?

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Have you been reading the thread ?

no....

Dionysus

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Where did I say that ?......Oh nevermind

It was not stated that you said it; you implied it with your question marks after 'national' in 'national school.'

Mike 1972

Dionysus wrote: »

It was not stated that you said it; you implied it with your question marks after 'national' in 'national school.'

I did nothing of the sort

Dionysus

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I did nothing of the sort

Then what, exactly, were you trying to say?

worded

Thucydides wrote: »

My personal opinion is that religion has as much right to be taught in a
school as physics or grammar does in a church - none. School should always be a place of reason & science.

+1

Mike 1972

Dionysus wrote: »

Then what, exactly, were you trying to say?

I was questioning why theyre called national schools when they are clearly nothing of the sort.

But wouldnt this have been a lot easier if you asked in the first place rather than jumping to conclusions ?

Goodnight !

wild_cat

moretothegirl wrote: »

as a person who stuidied archaeology that would greatly annoy me lol but i guess we can all single our ridiculous scenarios similar to that that may not have anything to do with the church at all. did you read the other post on this forum about stupid things you were taught in school?plenty of ridiculous things taught by teachers, not nuns/priests.

Im not sure if iv mentioned this before but my view is that the schools should be connected to the church, but i dont necessarily feel the teachers should all be nuns and priests. my local school is catholic run, was originally run by the nuns but now is all fully qualified teachers... yet it still has the strong catholic element to it. I feel that is the way it should be. I dont think that being a nun or priest entiles you to teach children education. but I personally feel they are a welcoming and warm presence regarding the religious aspects such as when they go to mass etc. or the odd visit in class from the local priest.

I've read the whole thread, its not as out there as being pulled up by " the locks".

Given the average age of most priests and nuns that are in parishes and schools today they were all around in the era of "abuse" and most of them turned a blind eye. Theres a middle generation out there that were young at the time when those events took place and were in boarding schools/orphanages etc. Everyone knew what was going on, even the people who were not being abused, ask any student from St.Peters in Wexford in the sixties/seventies. They were not listened to as no man of God could comit acts like that.

So with the average age of the clergy they were all involved in the cover up, nothing warm or fluffy about hiding rapists and child molesters.

Dionysus

Mike 1972 wrote: »

I was questioning why theyre called national schools when they are clearly nothing of the sort.

Em, they are named National Schools because that is, well, what they were, in fact, named. They were, equally in fact, multidenominational when they were initially established in 1831 and it was only subsequently that they became de facto denominational schools. In law today, however, the National School system remains a de jure multidenominational one.

Next time, save the nitpicking.

Seaneh

retards fighting over something they know nothing about.

sure tis what boards is about don't ya know!

Ickle Magoo

moretothegirl wrote: »

First off I definitely think it should be first come first served, I will admit I am unaware of the situation so I won't say that what your telling me is bull, I will admit I am shocked that that case could happen though. I completely agree that that should not be allowed happen under any circumstances. I have my beliefs, but I would NEVER think that because I am baptised that I am in any way more important than anybody else baptised or non baptised.

I understand your point, I really do. However, it seems like an issue in which someone will always be left unhappy as I still feel there are many people who wish religion to stay part of the school so the question is who do we alienate, the people who have chosen not to take part in any religion, or those who want religion in school? There are no easy answers to this.

This is why I stated that I think the Educate Together schools are the way forward, they need to be supported more and more need to be set up. This will enable choice within communities.

In this day and age religious discrimination and segregation in primary schools is archaic and appalling. The fact that the status quo suits the majority of Irish people does not make it right, in fact the education system here is in direct contravention of the human rights charter, so much for a modern western country.

Schools do not pick pupils based on the local catchment area, they accept pupils according to who applies and they set an application which specifically asks for a baptismal cert. They are perfectly within their rights to give preferential enrolment to the children that meet their religious criterion and not those who apply first or live closest. Look at the case in Dublin where all those kids were left with no school & the council had to cobble together a port-a-cabin for them.

We had a look around our local schools and were told not to bother applying to some, they were already oversubscribed and the chance of them picking a non-Catholic, who they would have to make alternative arrangements for during sacraments, etc, was nil. I hear of people who have to travel 40 min round trips to get their kid to an ET, it's just not good enough that people who contribute equally to the state funds are having such trouble fulfilling a basic requirement for their children. Public funds should be spent on state schools for the public, not elite religious establishments that segregate and discriminate. If someone wants to send their kid to a faith school that can discriminate against my kid, why should I have to fund it?

If schools discriminated or segregated pupils based on race or disability there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry - even though the majority of pupils in school are neither. Why is religious discrimination not only accepted here, it's often lauded?! It's shameful. :mad:

deburgo1

There does not appear to be much evidence to suggest that the vast majority of clerics and holy men (lay) are not into paedophile activity. Remember it is just a short time ago when anyone suggesting that clerics (priests or bishops) were practicing paedophiles wre considered lunatics.
I cannot see any good or healthy reason why priests should be present at schools.
The former rc BISHOP OF ACONERY tOM fLYNN STATED THAT CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS SHOULD NOT BE EXPOSEd to excessive fundamentalism.
Th eschools wre built by the people and funded by the state and have nothing whatever to do with the clerics. The bishop patronage business is meerly an administyrative arrangement and only serves to allow the RC church or other churches to extract substantiaal funds from the state for management and chaplency SERVICES. Th epayments are not to the priest (one time managers)but directly in bulk to the bishop prick.
I did not allow the local parish priest attend at the local school while my children attended, I deemed it best that there was no contact with him and I am happy that that was the right course of action.

deburgo1

very true- they are national schools.
Th eclerical patron thing is just an administrative arrangement. It never did bestow any ownership or control and can easly be removed. It should be removed. If it is not to be removed and if this matter is openly decided rather than decided by cute hoors then state funding should be removed. State funding fro state schools. We as parents were denied the right to educate our children free from religious balderdaash and I very much resent that. the number of people holding ssuch resentment will grow and have effct but if there is inaction perhaps the effects will be very undesirable as perhaps must be the case.

rohatch

Dionysus wrote: »

Your argument would be much stronger if you could show some historical empathy on this issue.

We all know what the history is, it has been done to death on boards.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Also the schools can legally discriminate and not hire teachers who are active Catholics and teachers can be dismissed if comes to the attention of the board of management they are not living in accordance to catholic ideals.

The fact that IF YOU WERE ABUSED, you have to request a copy of the schools own procedures on child abuse, from the schools board of management which is chaired by a priest. WHY!

moretothegirl wrote: »

Since we are living in a nation that has very strong christian links then obviously either roman catholic church or church of ireland. and before anyone jumps down my neck of living in the now and ireland being a different country now, i think it would be a very drastic decision to sever the ties between the church and state/education as it runs deep into our history for hundreds of years and who are you to decide it is time to cut that link now and undo all that work when there are still plenty of people who are happy to have this connection?

You see people this is the problem. Our country is full of stupid fools who feel like this below.

"Sure didn't they only fcuk a few thousand kiddies

Sure didn't they only kill a few children (and they probably deserved it)

Sure didn't they make up the bible and all those stupid extra rules that are not in the original bible, or the other original bible before than one where god went a little bit mad

Sure I got beaten around the place in school but it did me no harm"

WAKE THE FCUK UP PEOPLE

rohatch

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ignorance is always a bad thing. Why shouldn't schools teach about religions?

BECAUSE IT IS BULLSH1T

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

rohatch wrote: »

BECAUSE IT IS BULLSH1T

"It"? Surely you mean "they"? One way or the other, it is an interesting way of dismissing a variety of rich cultural traditions from around the world. Maybe we should do the same with history? And geography? After all they're "bull****" too, aren't they?

dvpower

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ignorance is always a bad thing. Why shouldn't schools teach about religions?

Schools should teach about religions. They shouldn't teach that one particular religion is the right one or that the incredible claims that religions make have any basis in fact.

Funglegunk

rohatch wrote: »

<<Everything you've said>>

Jesus Christ...

worded

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

"It"? Surely you mean "they"? One way or the other, it is an interesting way of dismissing a variety of rich cultural traditions from around the world. Maybe we should do the same with history? And geography? After all they're "bull****" too, aren't they?

My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dvpower wrote: »

Schools should teach about religions. They shouldn't teach that one particular religion is the right one or that the incredible claims that religions make have any basis in fact.

My point exactly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

worded wrote: »

My invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.

Satan?

TheZohanS

rohatch wrote: »

BECAUSE IT IS BULLSH1T

If that is how you engage in discussion I have no other choice but to tell you not to post in this thread again.

If you do post in this thread again you will be banned.

Seth Brundle

How did this manage to get into the Lonely Hearts forum?

As for the RC church controlling the schools, I gather from the grapevine that the church may hand them once they have managed to saturate the different boards with their Opus Dei representatives!

Nodin

kbannon wrote: »

How did this manage to get into the Lonely Hearts forum?

Its the second time today thats happened with a thread....

Could be Modwar.

RonMexico

Am I the only one hoping that we can get political influence removed from decision making in this country?

Mike 1972

RonMexico wrote: »

Am I the only one hoping that we can get political influence removed from decision making in this country?

What are you suggesting ? Military dictatorship :eek: