NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

Penn

philologos wrote: »

Also churches provide education through many schools, so claiming that they can't organise / do it themselves is a little absurd in retrospect since churches also run many of the schools.

That's what I mean though. Currently, they provide religious education through many schools, which they run. So if the school was made secular, why can't they provide religious education outside of the school? Perhaps in exchange for transferring the patronage to the State, they could be allowed to use the school premises after school hours or weekends.

philologos wrote: »

There are many churches in Ireland, there are many religions in Ireland also. As such it isn't about a single church, but it's about faith schools in general. Most religious groups would like to provide parents with the choice not just one.

So why should any State-funded school be allowed to just teach one religion? If a religious group wants a school which caters for members of that religious group, that's fine. Let them pay for it. Once it meets standards by the Department of Education in terms of education outside of the religious ethos of the school, that's fine. Absolutely they should be allowed to do that.

But not in State-funded schools. No way. Not for any religion.

robindch

Barrington wrote: »

If they are so concerned about their children getting a religious education, teach them about their religion at home.

A couple of reasons -- (a) parents are too lazy and religiously clueless to be able to indoctrinate children with a sufficiently high hit rate into a static, authoritarian, state-sponsored religion like catholicism(*); I suspect that parents who do this will produce protestants (who believe that a priesthood is not necessary), rather than more catholics (b) the whole point of catholicism is that it's got its own priesthood who are there to indoctrinate kids in place of the parents, so that future generations of people will either choose to become priests or priest-supporters, so that the whole desperate, wheezing jalopy can continue into the next generation.

(*) that's why most of US 'home-schoolers' are protestant, not catholic -- protestantism is the ultimate "any-size fits one" religion.

.

Mistress 69

robindch wrote: »

A couple of reasons -- (a) parents are too lazy and religiously clueless to be able to indoctrinate children with a sufficiently high hit rate into a static, authoritarian, state-sponsored religion like catholicism(*); I suspect that parents who do this will produce protestants (who believe that a priesthood is not necessary), rather than more catholics (b) the whole point of catholicism is that it's got its own priesthood who are there to indoctrinate kids in place of the parents, so that future generations of people will either choose to become priests or priest-supporters, so that the whole desperate, wheezing jalopy can continue into the next generation.

(*) that's why most of US 'home-schoolers' are protestant, not catholic -- protestantism is the ultimate "any-size fits one" religion.

.

. Its pretty late. Don't know how you keep going Robin. Interesting post ... Very interesting.. I know better than to even try to engage it at this hour... !

Turtwig

Mistress 69 wrote: »

. Its pretty late. Don't know how you keep going Robin. Interesting post ... Very interesting.. I know better than to even try to engage it at this hour... !

Espressos and the coffee machine : worst invention ever!:(:(
The crash is coming. .

crucamim

gvn wrote: »

I suppose having seperate seats on buses for black people is a liberal idea too, then? I can see no distinction between that and having different schools for different ethnicities.

If that is the way you want to see it, that is your business. Now please stop interfering with the right of Catholics to be Catholics.

rainbow kirby

crucamim wrote: »

Now please stop interfering with the right of Catholics to be Catholics.

crucamim

koth wrote: »

"So if a faith school opts to have an hour of prayer every day, you're ok with that?"

Yes. If they so wish. I suspect such a school would soon start losing numbers.

"But the state shouldn't be providing schools to accommodate the various religious groups. Religious instruction should be the responsibility of the parents and their respective religious group, not the primary school teacher in the local school."

Please leave it to the Catholic church to decide what religion is taught in the schools which it owns. And extend that same courtersy to the Presbyterian Church and the Church of Ireland. And also to the Jews.

"It's not possible to provide every required school in every town and village."

That is not the fault of Catholics.

"That sectarian attitude doesn't belong in a primary school."

Please leave it to the RC Church to decide what belongs in primary schools owned by the RC Church. Please leave it to the Church of Ireland to decide what belongs in schools owned by the Church of Ireland.

"We should be casting off such outdated thinking, not promoting it"

Please leave it to the RC Church to decide what it should be promoting. And leave it to the various Protestant denominations to decide what they should be promoting. Please do not interfere in the affairs of organisations of which you are not a member.

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

You are very confused or a troll.

Be serious, or be gone.

I am serious, deadly serious. I disapprove of Catholic children being in the same schools as non-Catholic children - subject, of course, to the right of the parents of those Catholic children to opt for such an arrangement.

I disapprove of Catholic children being taught by teachers who are not practising Catholics - subject, of course, to the right of the parents of those Catholic children to opt for such an arrangement.

Penn

crucamim wrote: »

"So if a faith school opts to have an hour of prayer every day, you're ok with that?"

Yes. If they so wish. I suspect such a school would soon start losing numbers.

"But the state shouldn't be providing schools to accommodate the various religious groups. Religious instruction should be the responsibility of the parents and their respective religious group, not the primary school teacher in the local school."

Please leave it to the Catholic church to decide what religion is taught in the schools which it owns. And extend that same courtersy to the Presbyterian Church and the Church of Ireland. And also to the Jews.

"It's not possible to provide every required school in every town and village."

That is not the fault of Catholics.

"That sectarian attitude doesn't belong in a primary school."

Please leave it to the RC Church to decide what belongs in primary schools owned by the RC Church. Please leave it to the Church of Ireland to decide what belongs in schools owned by the Church of Ireland.

"We should be casting off such outdated thinking, not promoting it"

Please leave it to the RC Church to decide what it should be promoting. And leave it to the various Protestant denominations to decide what they should be promoting. Please do not interfere in the affairs of organisations of which you are not a member.

Please leave it to the State which funds the schools to decide how the schools they pay for should be run.

rainbow kirby

crucamim wrote: »

Please do not interfere in the affairs of organisations of which you are not a member.

There's something very ironic about hearing that from a Catholic.

crucamim

Barrington wrote: »

"I still fail to see why it is the schools responsibility to teach children their faith."

And I cannot see what your difficulty is. If it were a school owned by the State, I would agree with you 100%. But a denominational school exists to promote that faith. You might as well be complaining about the IRFU promoting rugby and not hurling. Its purpose is to promote rugby, not hurling. What exactly is your problem?

"Why should the teachers spend even 30 minutes a week teaching children Christianity?"

They should have to do so only if they are employed by a Christain school.

"If the parents wish for their children to be taught Christianity, why the **** don't they do it themselves? "

I do not know. Probably because they prefer the school to do it for them.
Why are you interfering with what goes on in a schools owned by a church?

"I'm sorry, but this whole argument annoys the hell out of me. I fail to see why, if they want religious teaching for their children, why does it need to be done by the school?"

And I fail to see why you are questioning the right to memebrs of a faith to have their own schools to promote that faith.

"Even after school? Why can't the parents do it if it's so important to them? Why can't the church organise (and pay for) religion classes outside of school?"

Why should a church not use a school which it owns to promote its interests?

"Seriously. Honest question. Why can't the parents do it themselves"

And another honest question. Why can you not stop interfering with practising members of a church?

crucamim

Barrington wrote: »

"I agree absolutely. There's no doubt in my mind that that's pretty much the main reason the church doesn't want to give it up."

And what could be wrong with that? Is self-interest a crime?

"Then the church could aid this by organising after school classes run by the church too."

Please leave it to each church to decide how it organises its schools.

crucamim

Barrington wrote: »

"So if the school was made secular, why can't they provide religious education outside of the school?"

Why should a Catholic school be made secular?

"Perhaps in exchange for transferring the patronage to the State, they could be allowed to use the school premises after school hours or week ends."

Why should a Catholic school be transferred to the State? Should your property be transferred to the State?

"So why should any State-funded school be allowed to just teach one religion?"

Because it is owned by that religion. I resent your insinuation that in a Catholic school, non-Catholics should have equality with Catholics. What next? Will you suggest that, in Croke Park, rugby players should have equality with gaelic footballers. Or that, in your home, I should have equality with you.

"If a religious group wants a school which caters for members of that religious group, that's fine. Let them pay for it."

Why should Catholics pay tax to educate your children if you are not payng tax to educate Catholic children?

"Once it meets standards by the Department of Education in terms of education outside of the religious ethos of the school, that's fine. Absolutely they should be allowed to do that."

I hope that does not mean Catholic children having to share a school with non-Catholics or submit to the authority of a non-Catholic teacher.

"But not in State-funded schools. No way. Not for any religion."

When you write "State-funded", do you mean "taxpayer funded"? Do you know that the taxpayers include people of faith?

crucamim

rainbow kirby wrote: »

There's something very ironic about hearing that from a Catholic.

Why is it ironic?

BluntGuy

crucamim wrote: »

Please leave it to each church to decide how it organises its schools.

Sure, if it pays for them.

crucamim

Barrington wrote: »

Please leave it to the State which funds the schools to decide how the schools they pay for should be run.

The State does not fund the schools. The taxpayers do and most of those taxpayers are Catholics.

P.S. The taxpayers do not totally fund the Faith schools. The owners of a denominational school have to provide some of the funds.

crucamim

BluntGuy wrote: »

Sure, if it pays for them.

So you control your own home only if you pay for it yourself without any help from the taxpayer by way of mortgage tax relief.

Are you insinuating that wealthy Catholics who can afford private education have a right to keep their children safe while poor Catholics who cannot afford private education have no such right? Are you a snob?

Penn

crucamim wrote: »

"So if the school was made secular, why can't they provide religious education outside of the school?"

Why should a Catholic school be made secular?

"Perhaps in exchange for transferring the patronage to the State, they could be allowed to use the school premises after school hours or week ends."

Why should a Catholic school be transferred to the State? Should your property be transferred to the State?

"So why should any State-funded school be allowed to just teach one religion?"

Because it is owned by that religion. I resent your insinuation that in a Catholic school, non-Catholics should have equality with Catholics. What next? Will you suggest that, in Croke Park, rugby players should have equality with gaelic footballers. Or that, in your home, I should have equality with you.

"If a religious group wants a school which caters for members of that religious group, that's fine. Let them pay for it."

Why should Catholics pay tax to educate your children if you are not payng tax to educate Catholic children?

"Once it meets standards by the Department of Education in terms of education outside of the religious ethos of the school, that's fine. Absolutely they should be allowed to do that."

I hope that does not mean Catholic children having to share a school with non-Catholics or submit to the authority of a non-Catholic teacher.

"But not in State-funded schools. No way. Not for any religion."

When you write "State-funded", do you mean "taxpayer funded"? Do you know that the taxpayers include people of faith?

Do you know that taxpayers include people of no faith, or of different faiths?

And I dont think Catholics should pay taxes to fund Non-Catholic schools. Or that Non-Catholics should pay taxes to fund Catholic schools. I think everyone should pay taxes to fund schools.

And yes, I do think that Non-Catholics and Catholics should be treated equally. The world is changing, my friend. Slavery was abolished. Women can vote. Most places have disabled parking spaces. Gay marriage is becoming legal in more areas. Do you know why? Equality. The right for every person to be born equal, and to live their lives free from discrimination. And that includes discrimination based on their religion, or lack thereof. There's still a way to go, but making schools which are primarily funded by taxpayers of all religious backgrounds, available to all children of said taxpayers, is nothing more than a pitstop on that road. It may not fully happen in our lifetime. But it will happen.

Night folks!

BluntGuy

crucamim wrote: »

Are you insinuating that wealthy Catholics who can afford private education have a right to keep their children safe while poor Catholics who cannot afford private education have no such right? Are you a snob?

Keep their children "safe" from what? Non-Catholics? Non-white children? Homosexuals? Opinions that aren't exactly the same as their parents? Thinking for themselves? You're not sounding very liberal.

blackdog2

crucamim wrote: »

"So why should any State-funded school be allowed to just teach one religion?"

Because it is owned by that religion. I resent your insinuation that in a Catholic school, non-Catholics should have equality with Catholics. What next? Will you suggest that, in Croke Park, rugby players should have equality with gaelic footballers. Or that, in your home, I should have equality with you.

"If a religious group wants a school which caters for members of that religious group, that's fine. Let them pay for it."

Why should Catholics pay tax to educate your children if you are not payng tax to educate Catholic children?

"Once it meets standards by the Department of Education in terms of education outside of the religious ethos of the school, that's fine. Absolutely they should be allowed to do that."

I hope that does not mean Catholic children having to share a school with non-Catholics or submit to the authority of a non-Catholic teacher.

"But not in State-funded schools. No way. Not for any religion."

When you write "State-funded", do you mean "taxpayer funded"? Do you know that the taxpayers include people of faith?

This is nonsense. If you believe that you cannot live in a country with people who aren't catholic, go to The Vatican. Good luck looking down on those who don't "Share the faith".

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

Nothing did damage or prevented critical thought, or anything else. Far from it actually.

Really? No damage... interesting.

MrP

Zillah

crucamim wrote: »

Are you insinuating that wealthy Catholics who can afford private education have a right to keep their children safe while poor Catholics who cannot afford private education have no such right? Are you a snob?

Leaving aside the absurd usage of the word "safe" here....do you think that wealthy people deserve X while poor people who cannot afford X have no such right? Are you a snob?

Did you know you're a communist, or did your stawmen just get away from you a little bit there?

crucamim wrote: »

The State does not fund the schools.

...who do you think funds the state?

The taxpayers do and most of those taxpayers are Catholics.

And as we all know, in a fair society the rights of the minorities are trappled for the sake of the majority.

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

Yes. If they so wish. I suspect such a school would soon start losing numbers.

Do you have any limit to how much of the school day can be used for religious instruction. We've determined you're ok with 1 hour in every day, is that the most you'd be ok with or would you allow more time if they wanted it?

Please leave it to the Catholic church to decide what religion is taught in the schools which it owns. And extend that same courtersy to the Presbyterian Church and the Church of Ireland. And also to the Jews.

If they want to set up private schools, they can do as they like, but as long as it's a public school I don't agree with churches running the school.

That is not the fault of Catholics.

Students being catholic or not should not matter when it comes to public education.

Please leave it to the RC Church to decide what belongs in primary schools owned by the RC Church. Please leave it to the Church of Ireland to decide what belongs in schools owned by the Church of Ireland.

As I said already, only if it's a private school.

Please leave it to the RC Church to decide what it should be promoting. And leave it to the various Protestant denominations to decide what they should be promoting. Please do not interfere in the affairs of organisations of which you are not a member.

I'm not interfering in any of those organisations affairs. They are already interfering with the public education system, and asking to be allowed to continue to do so. So maybe you should direct the criticism in their direction.

philologos

Barrington wrote: »

But not in State-funded schools. No way. Not for any religion.

OK. But you're not the only person in society who will be able to contribute to discussing how the Government should spend taxes since believers also pay tax.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

OK. But you're not the only person in society who will be able to contribute to discussing how the Government should spend taxes since believers also pay tax.

So tax payers should fund schools so religious groups can promote their religion to children?

Why not have Man Utd. primary schools then for parents that want to raise their kids to support Man Utd?

Penn

philologos wrote: »

OK. But you're not the only person in society who will be able to contribute to discussing how the Government should spend taxes since believers also pay tax.

But this is my point, I don't think that schools should be secular in order to make it fair on those with no religious beliefs. I think they should be secular because then everybody is equal. Regardless of your religion, ethnicity, shoe size... You will have the same chances, the same education, and the same rights as everybody else.

I know that many people have varying opinions on what is best, and at the end of the day, we're all just trying to do what's best for our children, or future children. We all want our children to be raised and educated to as high a standard as possible so they can reach their full potential, and for a lot of people, religious education is included in that.

But why should some children be at more of a disadvantage to others? Why can they not all be equal? Look at the map on this page for where Educate Together schools are located. There are so many areas where it is impossible for parents with no religious beliefs to send their children to a school which would not teach any one religion as being fact, or be biased towards one religion.

Why should those children have to spend up to half an hour each day learning about one single religion which they aren't a part of? Why should they be segregated from the other children and have to do other work while the teacher focuses on the children of that religious group? It is not always possible for parents with no religious beliefs to send their children to an Educate Together school. If I had a child where I currently live, there is an Educate Together school about 20 minutes away. But there are no buses to it from where I live. The level of difficulty it would take for my child to go to and come home from school each day due to their religion or lack thereof, is completely unjustified in my opinion.

Everyone has a right of religion. But everyone has the right to be free from discrimination. And not getting a place in their local school or being segregated from the other children during religious education periods, due to their religious beliefs, is discrimination.

Delirium

It's also been argued that faith schools breach Article 14.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

rainbow kirby

crucamim wrote: »

Why is it ironic?

It's ironic given how much the Catholic church likes to meddle in other places whether it is neither wanted nor needed.

philologos

Barrington: If you read back on the thread you'll see I advocate the existence of secular schools. I think faith schools should still exist though. I think a percent of 60% secular to 40% faith schools is reasonable.

koth: by whom is probably the best question to ask?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

Barrington: If you read back on the thread you'll see I advocate the existence of secular schools. I think faith schools should still exist though. I think a percent of 60% secular to 40% faith schools is reasonable.

But why? When it is not necessary.