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

crucamim

gvn wrote: »

I wouldn't like to see children who actually were Catholics in the hands of expressly anti-Catholic teachers. Children should be taught by unbiased teachers; an anti-Catholic teacher is as bad, to me, as a fanatically-Catholic teacher, just as an anti-Islam teacher is as bad as a fundamentalist Islamic teacher.

We don't want to see Catholic children (though I don't see any children as Catholics, but that's another debate) left out. We want to see all children treated equally, with nobody left out because of their beliefs. The only way this can happen is to provide a fully secular public school system.

There is one way and only one way to stop anti-Catholics abusing their power over Catholics. Do not let them have such power.

Can you guarantee that in a fully secular public school system there would be no instances of Catholic children being bullied by an anti-Catholic teacher?

philologos

crucamim wrote: »

The Catholic Church in Ireland became an opponent of integrated education in response to how it was treated by the Presbyterians and Anglicans who controlled the Board of Education during the period 1831 to 1859. It was only in 1859 that the Catholic Church in Ireland turned its back on integrated education and has never relented. They were taught the hard way.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

I was studying politics about 2 years ago at university and for my Political Institutions in Ireland essay I wrote about the educational system in Ireland. The Stanley Letter of 1831 originally intended for most schools in Ireland to be multidenominational. It was only later when they struggled to find well intentioned patrons to take initiative on schools that they allowed the RCC to have a greater say in respect to education.

crucamim

crucamim wrote: »

There is one way and only one way to stop anti-Catholics abusing their power over Catholics. Do not let them have such power.

Can you guarantee that in a fully secular public school system there would be no instances of Catholic children being bullied by an anti-Catholic teacher?

Of course I can't guarantee that. But, let me tell you, even in your "Catholic school system" the vast majority of teachers I know, who teach in Catholic ethos schools, aren't themselves Catholic. You can't guarantee me that in the current system a Catholic child will not come into contact with an anti-Catholic teacher.

Just because somebody isn't a Catholic does not mean they're an anti-Catholic.

philologos

gvn wrote: »

Of course I can't guarantee that. But, let me tell you, even in your "Catholic school system" the vast majority of teachers I know, who teach in Catholic ethos schools, aren't themselves Catholic. You can't guarantee me that in the current system a Catholic child will not come into contact with an anti-Catholic teacher.

Just because somebody isn't a Catholic does not mean they're an anti-Catholic.

What about the poor Jewish children who have Catholic anti-Semite teachers?*

* May include sensationalist hyperbolé

crucamim

Barrington wrote: »

"Right, since my joke answer fell flat, let me try a more serious approach."

What joke? I disapprove of jokes. I am a Catholic. Anti-Catholics trying to get power over defenceless Catholic children is not a joking matter.

"If you want to make sure your children get a good religious education, I would advise you to do it yourself at home."

I thought that I had already made it clear that I could not care less whether or nor Catholic children get a good religious education. I want all Catholic children to have an opportunity to go to school and, at the same time, be safe from anti-Catholics. As the American poet Robert Frost put it "Good fences make good neighbours".

I would also like the children of secularists to be able to attend schools without their being contaminated by Catholicism or by Protestantism or by Islam.

"Because no matter what school your child goes to, no matter what the teachers say or how often you see them at Mass, you may be sending your child straight into the arms of an Atheist"

That would not matter so long as the Atheist teacher behaves himself/herself or is made behave himself/herself.

getz

crucamim wrote: »

There is one way and only one way to stop anti-Catholics abusing their power over Catholics. Do not let them have such power.

Can you guarantee that in a fully secular public school system there would be no instances of Catholic children being bullied by an anti-Catholic teacher?

no problem in the UK,teachers are not brainwashed by religion,in the UK in the state schools ,there are many students of many different religions,teachers are trained to resprect religious belief,and teach children about each other students religions ,but i do understand that the church of rome would not like that in ireland

philologos

philologos wrote: »

What about the poor Jewish children who have Catholic anti-Semite teachers?*

* May include sensationalist hyperbolé

Or even the poor Fianna Fail child who comes into contact with a pro Fine Gael teacher. The horror of that!

Also, crucamim: do you understand that one can be a Catholic and a secularist simultaneously?

pH

crucamim wrote: »

I thought that I had already made it clear that I could not care less whether or nor Catholic children get a good religious education. I want all Catholic children to have an opportunity to go to school and, at the same time, be safe from anti-Catholics. As the American poet Robert Frost put it "Good fences make good neighbours".

And in the case where there is only enough money or children in a catchment area to support one school, what then?

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

See post 551.

you mean this?

Dades wrote: »

Didn't the taxpayer end up paying to clean up your church's sins to the tune of almost a billion euro since 2003?

I think it's time to hand over the keys, brother.

Sorry, curcamim, but Dades doesn't say anywhere that catholic children must be taught by anti-Catholic teachers.

crucamim

philologos wrote: »

I was studying politics about 2 years ago at university and for my Political Institutions in Ireland essay I wrote about the educational system in Ireland. The Stanley Letter of 1831 originally intended for most schools in Ireland to be multidenominational. It was only later when they struggled to find well intentioned patrons to take initiative on schools that they allowed the RCC to have a greater say in respect to education.

The Protestant Churches resisted the Stanley plan - even though the Board of Education consisted of 5 Protestants and 2 Catholics - for an Ireland which was about 80% Catholic. The Presbyterian resistance was violent - with physical attacks on Catholic children and schools being burned.

And then in 1846 the Board of Education defaulted on its statutory obligations to Catholics by failing to withdraw funding from a Presbyterian school in Boughshane, Co Antrim which had refused to comply with the law i.e To allow a Catholic priest to enter the school to teach religion to the two Catholic pupils who were attending that school.

Even then, it was another 13 years before the Catholic bishops caught themselves on and turned their backs on integrated education.

crucamim

getz wrote: »

no problem in the UK,teachers are not brainwashed by religion,in the UK in the state schools ,there are many students of many different religions,teachers are trained to resprect religious belief,and teach children about each other students religions ,but i do understand that the church of rome would not like that in ireland

Nor in those parts of the UK called "England", "Wales", "Scotland" and "Northern Ireland".

crucamim

pH wrote: »

And in the case where there is only enough money or children in a catchment area to support one school, what then?

That is their problem, not ours.

crucamim

koth wrote: »

you mean this?


Sorry, curcamim, but Dades doesn't say anywhere that catholic children must be taught by anti-Catholic teachers.

He most certainly did not state that Catholic children must be taught by anti-Catholic teachers but his questioning the right of the Catholic church to continue controlling the schools which it owns, raises that possibility.

crucamim

crucamim wrote: »

That is their problem, not ours.

I've a serious question, crucamim, and I'd really appreciate an answer.

Imagine the following scenario:

In a small village there's only one primary school: a Catholic one. The next nearest primary school is 30 miles away. A young child who's the child of atheist parents (or Muslim parents, or whatever else) wishes to attend the primary school.

Is it that young, six year old child's problem that their parents hold particular beliefs, beliefs that limit the child's prospects when it comes to admission into the local school? Do you believe it to be fair that the child should have to commute 60 miles daily in order to attend primary school?

philologos

crucamim wrote: »

The Protestant Churches resisted the Stanley plan - even though the Board of Education consisted of 5 Protestants and 2 Catholics - for an Ireland which was about 80% Catholic. The Presbyterian resistance was violent - with physical attacks on Catholic children and schools being burned.

I'm sure they did. From what investigation I did into the history of the Irish education system I found that clerics were vitriolicallany bigoted towards the idea of their own being educated by the other. I can only thank God that that part of our history is over.

Bigotry existed in the RCC, the CofI and the Presbyterian church at that time. It's something that we ought to lament.

crucamim wrote: »

And then in 1846 the Board of Education defaulted on its statutory obligations to Catholics by failing to withdraw funding from a Presbyterian school in Boughshane, Co Antrim which had refused to comply with the law i.e To allow a Catholic priest to enter the school to teach religion to the two Catholic pupils who were attending that school.

What statutory obligations? In 1831 the Stanley Plan initially planned to provide a multidenominational education system in Ireland. It wasn't until later that the RCC were considered as patrons. Following disestablishment the Church of Ireland struggled to keep its school system to the extent that it was.

crucamim

gvn wrote: »

"Of course I can't guarantee that. But, let me tell you, even in your "Catholic school system" the vast majority of teachers I know, who teach in Catholic ethos schools, aren't themselves Catholic."

I find that hard to believe. If it is true, what are the Catholic authorities doing about it?

"You can't guarantee me that in the current system a Catholic child will not come into contact with an anti-Catholic teacher."

I am confident that, if a Catholic child, attending a Catholic school, is being subjected to anti-Catholic harassment from a teacher or pupil, the Catholic authorities will take steps to stop it.

"Just because somebody isn't a Catholic does not mean they're an anti-Catholic."

What point are you making?

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

He most certainly did not state that Catholic children must be taught by anti-Catholic teachers but his questioning the right of the Catholic church to continue controlling the schools which it owns, raises that possibility.

No it doesn't, you're just attempting to twist Dades post to suit your sectarian point of view.

username

To quote properly, crucamim, this is what you do:

[noparse]

username wrote:

Quoted text.

.

You place the opening quote tag

username wrote:

, or simply just

, at the start of each block of quoted text, and at the end place the closing quote tag

.[/noparse] It's simple, really, and it'd make this discussion at lot clearer.

crucamim wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. If it is true, what are the Catholic authorities doing about it?

I've no idea what they're doing. I'm not sure they particularly care--not as much as you seem to, anyway. 92% of our schools are under the patronage of the Catholic church, do you really think every single one of the teachers in all of those schools are Catholic?

I am confident that, if a Catholic child, attending a Catholic school, is being subjected to anti-Catholic harassment from a teacher or pupil, the Catholic authorities will take steps to stop it.

I'd like to think that the authorities would intervene if any child was subjected to any kind of harassment. My care for children, in any school, doesn't just encompass the children who "fit" that school's ethos, it encompasses all children.

What point are you making?

My point is that there are very few anti-Catholics. There are quite a few non-Catholics, though. Anti-Catholic =/= non-Catholic. So, there's a difference between a child being taught by a non-Catholic and a child being taught by an anti-Catholic; if the latter express their views in class they shouldn't be in a position to teach.

crucamim

gvn wrote: »

To quote properly, crucamim, this is what you do:

[noparse].

You place the opening quote tag

username wrote:

, or simply just .[/noparse] It's simple, really, and it'd make this discussion at lot clearer.

How do I do that?

crucamim

crucamim wrote: »

How do I do that?

There's a pretty good guide here.

[noparse]But, basically.

You break the block of text you want to quote up onto the various parts you want to deal with.

So, before the first part you want to deal with you leave the original quote tag, which looks something like

username wrote: »

, where username is the username of the person you're quoting and XXXXXXXX is the post ID. Then, after that first block, you close it with a end quote tag,

. You then type your reply specifc to that quoted text.

Then, before the next block you want to quote you open another quote tag,

, and close the block of text with

. You then write your reply to that specific quoted block.[/noparse]


For example, if you had quoted this:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYY

You would lay it out in your reply as follows:

[noparse]

username wrote: »

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Your reply here.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYY

Another reply here.[/noparse]


This would then look like this once you've posted:

username wrote:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Your reply here.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYY

Another reply here.


It's awkward to get used to at first, but once you get the hang of it it saves a lot of bother for everybody.

Knasher

crucamim wrote: »

How do I do that?

You have the open quote tag [noparse]

and you just need to have the close quote tag after the quoted text

[/noparse]
which ends up looking like this after you post:

and you just need to have the close quote tag after the quoted text

the =username;number part goes into the first quote tag like so:
[noparse]

crucamim wrote: »

[/noparse]
so that people can follow who you are replying to. This information is inserted automatically when you click on the quote button.

If you want to make counterpoints in-between somebody's post it should look kinda like this:

[noparse]

crucamim wrote: »

First point

Counterpoint.

crucamim wrote: »

Second point

second counterpoint
[/noparse]

And so on.

You can also preview your post before submitting it to make sure it is showing up correctly.

Turtwig

crucamim wrote: »

gvn wrote: »

To quote properly, crucamim, this is what you do:

[noparse]

username wrote:

Quoted text.

.[/noparse]

You place the opening quote tag [noparse]

username wrote:

, or simply just

, at the start of each block of quoted text, and at the end place the closing quote tag

. It's simple, really, and it'd make this discussion at lot clearer.
[/noparse]

How do I do that?

Just pm your posts to me in advance
I'll do the post editing for you:p

Dades

crucamim wrote: »

He most certainly did not state that Catholic children must be taught by anti-Catholic teachers but his questioning the right of the Catholic church to continue controlling the schools which it owns, raises that possibility.

Eh, no. I don't care what religion the teachers are as long as they aren't teaching their religion to kids during school hours. Most would be perfectly happy to not this too.

crucamim

Dades wrote: »

Eh, no. I don't care what religion the teachers are as long as they aren't teaching their religion to kids during school hours. Most would be perfectly happy to not this too.

Now, now, now you are being bold, very, very bold. You are seeking to dictate the time-table of a school owned by the Catholic Church.

You may not care what religon the teachers are. You might not care about their political views or their sporting allegiences. You might not care about their personal lives. BUT some of the Catholic parents might care. And, indeed, also some Protestant parents. And possibly also some Muslim parents. And Jews might not want their children to be taught by supporters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

People have a right to be concerned about the character, behaviour and example of those who teach their children.

crucamim

Malty_T wrote: »

crucamim wrote: »

Just pm your posts to me in advance
I'll do the post editing for you:p

Thank you.

Now how do I send pms? I will investigate. None of this new fangled technology should have been invented until people like me had died off.

Turtwig

crucamim wrote: »

Now, now, now you are being bold, very, very bold. You are seeking to dictate the time-table of a school owned by the Catholic Church.

You may not care what religon the teachers are. You might not care about their political views or their sporting allegiences. You might not care about their personal lives. BUT some of the Catholic parents might care. And, indeed, also some Protestant parents. And possibly also some Muslim parents. And Jews might not want their children to be taught by supporters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

People have a right to be concerned about the character, behaviour and example of those who teach their children.

I do very much hope you are aware that the children are required to be taught a syllabus that covers subjects such as English, Irish and Maths. If the kids don't learn the basics of common knowledge they'll never fit into society at all.

I got a question, could you as a Catholic attend the funeral service of a Protestant?

Knasher

crucamim wrote: »

I am confident that, if a Catholic child, attending a Catholic school, is being subjected to anti-Catholic harassment from a teacher or pupil, the Catholic authorities will take steps to stop it.

Really, why do you have such faith in the catholic authorities to protect children considering the abuses that they allowed against our own children, the reports that such abuses are still ongoing in the African missions and that the church still refuses to fully cooperate to put an end to this travesty.

crucamim wrote: »

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

crucamim

Knasher wrote: »

Really, why do you have such faith in the catholic authorities to protect children considering the abuses that they allowed against our own children, the reports that such abuses are still ongoing in the African missions and that the church still refuses to fully cooperate to put an end to this travesty.

Catholics, who do not have confidence in Catholic schools, need not send their children to Catholic schools. So long as they do not interfere with Catholics who do want to send their children to Catholic schools, I have no quarrel with them. I am a liberal.

ShooterSF

See crucamim. All these helpful anti-Catholics trying to help you learn how to use the quote function and not one tried to convert you

crucamim

Malty_T wrote: »

I got a question, could you as a Catholic attend the funeral service of a Protestant?

I have done so. It was interesting in that there were no women at the funeral. Not in the Calvinist tradition.