"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A refusal to allow them to learn about religion?

Nobody's advocating that.
But if the parents choose the child's religion, they should not expect society to instruct the children in it. It's called personal responsibility.

My name is URL

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

A good point. I'll refine my argument. In general the benefit of the child and society in general should be of utmost importance when designing the curriculum. Nothing that is not fact should be taught as fact. Preventing a child from access to a public school due to their religion is not or lack thereof is not in the best interest of the child.

The decisions that parents have over their education should be ones that don't affect fundamental rights or warp a childs beliefs to reality.

I agree with the first paragraph, but your second one is very contradictory. If it was up to me there would be a complete disconnect between state and faith schools. But it's up to the government to bring that about, not the schools themselves. I don't think the country could afford to take over all catholic schools anyway, so the alternative would be what.. close some of the schools down completely?

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

I love how you keep using other organisations you think are discriminatory to defend the fact that children are being discriminated at schools!!

A bit like resorting to skin colour in order to make a point about the same. Btw I don't think the GAA are discriminatory. That's the whole point.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Great logic there Prinz. In school i learned that "2 wrongs don't make a right".... just as well i was baptised eh? otherwise i'd have never learned that!

No one teach you that before school, no?

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But isn't that what it is? Taking religion out of schools altogether? Making sure it's not taught?

A serious answer please.

I'm all in favour of teaching children about religions. By all means, that should remain.

But instructing them in any particular religion cannot be the role of a state-funded school. And denying children access because their parents chose the "wrong" religion definitely isn't either.

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

We're agreed then. The state should prioritise state schools, open to all, teaching the national curriculum, pretty much agnostic about a child's religion. If someone wants a non standard education then they should fund their own schools. If the state has some left over money in the education budget, after it has provided a universal state system, it could try and help out with some funding for these non standard schools.

Absolutely.:D Sounds good. I have been saying that from the beginning.

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

A bit like resorting to skin colour in order to make a point about the same. Btw I don't think the GAA are discriminatory. That's the whole point.

No, not resorting at all! Making a direct comparison. One which you refused to answer because you knew you were being contradictory.

No one teach you that before school, no?

Unfortunately not. My parents are Catholic see, they have a skewed view of what's right and what's acceptable once it agrees with their religion

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

No, not resorting at all! Making a direct comparison. One which you refused to answer because you knew you were being contradictory.

Oh but I wasn't. It's not a direct comparison btw. You can change your religion but you can't change your skin colour.

strobe

prinz wrote: »

Personally at primary level I'd go for 100% State run secular. Compulsory. IMO the choice should only come into it at secondary level.

Agreed, I don't know if this is your reasoning but personally I find the idea of dividing young children down sectarian religious lines to be absolutely stomach churning to be honest. I can't fathom how anyone believes that is a healthy thing to do, for the children, or society in general, especially in this country and the situation up the road.

Scanlas The 2nd

My name is URL wrote: »

I agree with the first paragraph, but your second one is very contradictory. If it was up to me there would be a complete disconnect between state and faith schools. But it's up to the government to bring that about, not the schools themselves. I don't think the country could afford to take over all catholic schools anyway, so the alternative would be what.. close some of the schools down completely?

I'm talking about what should be done. Not what's logistically possible this instant.

Shenshen

prinz wrote: »

Oh but I wasn't. It's not a direct comparison btw. You can change your religion but you can't change your skin colour.

Interesting... if you can change your religion at will, why are special allowances made for religion and religious people?

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

Oh but I wasn't. It's not a direct comparison btw. You can change your religion but you can't change your skin colour.

Not if you'eve been Baptised you can't

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056058703

prinz

strobe wrote: »

Agreed, I don't know if this is your reasoning but personally I find the idea of dividing young children down sectarian religious lines to be absolutely stomach churning to be honest. I can't fathom how anyone believes that is a healthy thing to do, especially in this country and the situation up the road.

That would be part of it. It is something I have long thought having gone to primary school in a village with a Catholic Primary one side and a CoI on the other, and people of both denominations in both schools because of geography, travelling back and forth for communion classes or whatever. Absurd set-up.

The other is that including religion classes in school IMO is actually detrimental to the religion itself. Instead of people interested and wanting to learn, you have people sitting there listening because they have to, or it's the done thing. A bit like compulsory Irish.

Killer Pigeon

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

Atheist, apparently one of the hardest words in the English language to spell correctly.

Who's the Athiest Atheist?

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Not if you'eve been Baptised you can't

It seems you have conveniently missed the part of the thread dealing with a change in your religion. Thaedydal outlined it. It's an issue which should be sorted out.

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

It seems you have conveniently missed the part of the thread dealing with a change in your religion.

The link is about RCC not accepting any more defections, I think his point stands

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

It seems you have conveniently missed the part of the thread dealing with a change in your religion. Thaedydal outlined it. It's an issue which should be sorted out.

Not at all!

You've juset made a comment which turns out not to be true. Sorry.

nullzero

Ultimate fvcking smug fest of a thread.
I'm an athiest, but I'm not a absolute cvnt about it.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

The link is about RCC not accepting any more defections, I think his point stands

So you can't change your religion?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463879&postcount=7

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Not at all!
You've juset made a comment which turns out not to be true. Sorry.

As above, see link.

optogirl

mossyc123 wrote: »

It's NEVER going to happen again in the RCC so shouldn't be used as a stick to beat the Church.

what? One hell of a statement

MrStuffins

prinz wrote: »

So you can't change your religion?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463879&postcount=7

Are you serious? Do i really have to answer this.............................. sigh!

No, you can't change your religion! You can be kicked out though, but you can't change it!


sigh!

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

The problem with that tends to be that suddenly, you need twice the number of schools.
And I personally don't see why money should be wasted to indulge people's personal choices.

Unless of course that personal choice is for secular education? Sorry a little snappy maybe but you can see where I'm coming from.

Tbh I have no problem at all with secular schools paid for by the State just so long as those of Faith can have still religious schools but paid for by the Mosque/Church/Synagogue etc

If our government can find the money to build the Metro during a recession I'm sure they'd have no problem finding the funds to set that kind of system up.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm all in favour of teaching children about religions. By all means, that should remain.

But instructing them in any particular religion cannot be the role of a state-funded school. And denying children access because their parents chose the "wrong" religion definitely isn't either.

I completely agree that's wrong. I don't think I ever said otherwise to be fair.

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

what? One hell of a statement

Chances are you are safer in the RCC these days as you are anywhere else. I know one priest who has been forbidden by superiors from being in the same room as his niece without another adult present, apparently a widespread warning. I don't think any other organisation in the world goes to similar lengths.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

Nobody's advocating that.
But if the parents choose the child's religion, they should not expect society to instruct the children in it. It's called personal responsibility.

Again no of course they shouldn't, I never said that.

coffee_cake

prinz wrote: »

So you can't change your religion?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68463879&postcount=7

Can I decide I've changed it? Sure
Will they recognise that? Possibly not

prinz

MrStuffins wrote: »

Are you serious? Do i really have to answer this.............................. sigh! No, you can't change your religion! You can be kicked out though, but you can't change it! sigh!

Thaedydal wrote:

unless you have joined another religion which they recognise and can submit paper work to them.

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh - oh wait that's stupid childishness.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Unless of course that personal choice is for secular education?

Tbh I have no problem at all with secular schools paid for by the State just so long as those of Faith can have still religious schools but paid for by the Mosque/Church/Synagogue etc

If our government can find the money to build the Metro during a recession I'm sure they'd have no problem finding the funds to set that kind of system up.

Ok... so... what on earth were you arguing for dozens of pages for?
Religious education funded by the churches, regular education funded by the state was what I said in my very first post on this topic.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

Ok... so... what on earth were you arguing for dozens of pages for?
Religious education funded by the churches, regular education funded by the state was what I said in my very first post on this topic.

I was arguing more against a totally secular system with no faith schools which is what I normally take the call for secularisation and removal of religion from schools to mean.

If I took it up wrong I'm sorry:)

Delirium

prinz wrote: »

As above, see link.

And what if you don't want to join another religion? They've removed the procedure to officially leave the Catholic church.