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

crucamim

philologos wrote: »

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

* May include sensationalist hyperbolé

They would need Jewish schools.

crucamim

gvn wrote: »

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?

This would be a problem for the parents. What they should do is none of my business.

The law, as it stands, requires the local Catholic school to admit that child - except where the school has no vacancies. I disagree with that law. I think that non-Catholics should have no right to admittance to a Catholic school - except with the approval of the Catholic authorities. Admittance to the Catholic school should be a concession not a right. In that case, the Catholic authorities could admit the child on condition that the child would not be used as a spearhead to undermine the Catholicism of the school and would not involve himself in any physical or verbal sectarian attacks on Catholics or on Catholicism.

Solair

Meanwhile, DCU is finding that student journalists have no understanding of basic grammar, creative writing or spelling and our mathematical ability is pretty poor according to almost all of the IT employers in Ireland.

As I see it, the education system in Ireland needs radical reform. The religious patronage / voluntary model and also gender segregation cause our school system to be highly fractured, with massive levels of duplication of institutions and very poorly resourced schools.

If you take a typical town or suburb you often have :
Boys Catholic NS
Girls Catholic NS
Posher Boys Catholic NS
Posher Girls Catholic NS
Protestant NS
Educate Together NS
Gaelscoil
and probably a few others in some areas too.

So, instead of a couple of decent schools with resources like sports facilities, libraries, science labs, art rooms, psychological support and a wide range of subject choice, you have small, under-resourced, expensive, badly maintained buildings and a total lack of sports, science, art and other vital facilities.

Do we want an education system, or do we just want to bicker about cultural badges of identity and ancient history?

Surely the obvious solution is to have a well-resourced, community-oriented, secular school system which is open to everyone and to move the teaching of religion back into the churches / religious institutions and out of the school system.

We're broke! We cannot afford this a la carte education system with a different type of school for every different view point. It is costing a fortune and it is providing very poor facilities to our children.

We should be looking at the world's best models, not just idealising some half-baked charitable British Victorian system that we inherited and never really modified, other than to start funding it directly from the state's coffers.

Our education "system" is pretty bizarre by international standards and for some reason it seems to be immune to proper, robust, open debate or criticism.

I also have a massive issue with the fact that the very same organisations that were implicated in systematic cover-ups of the most depraved child abuse are *still* running schools and everyone seems to be 'fine' about it...

There's something very strange about how we think about education and childcare in this country!

Perhaps, rather than having a bunch of vested interests discussing this ad nauseum, we should put it to the people in a quick referendum?

Tordelback

crucamim wrote: »

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

This may be the single most fascinating post I've ever read on Boards, and one of the best arguments for multi-denominational education in this entire thread.

Person has been to one Protestant funeral.
Person makes demographic observation at funeral.
Person concludes that observation must be product of religious tradition.
Person would have benefited from multi-denominational education.
(Or a day-pass out of their self-imposed ghetto).

Tordelback

Solair wrote: »

If you take a typical town or suburb you often have :
Boys Catholic NS
Girls Catholic NS
Posher Boys Catholic NS
Posher Girls Catholic NS
Protestant NS
Educate Together NS
Gaelscoil
and probably a few others in some areas too.

If only! I live in Tallaght, population a measly 65,000, and I have to ship my kids to either Rathfarnham, Blessington or Adamstown to get them into a multi-denominational Educate Together, driving past literally dozens of single-faith based schools on the way. I make a special effort to oppress them all as I go by.

crucamim

Solair wrote: »

I also have a massive issue with the fact that the very same organisations that were implicated in systematic cover-ups of the most depraved child abuse are *still* running schools and everyone seems to be 'fine' about it...

They are still controlling the schools which they own. What is wrong with that? If you do not like their schools, do not send your child to any of their schools and please do not interfere with other people's choice of school. Catholic schools did not fall from heaven. They were established by committed Catholics. And the same goes for Protestant schools. What is stopping you anti-Catholics establishing your own schools?

crucamim

Tordelback wrote: »

This may be the single most fascinating post I've ever read on Boards, and one of the best arguments for multi-denominational education in this entire thread.

Person has been to one Protestant funeral.
Person makes demographic observation at funeral.
Person concludes that observation must be product of religious tradition.
Person would have benefited from multi-denominational education.
(Or a day-pass out of their self-imposed ghetto).

How do you know that it was self-imposed?

If you want multi-denominational education for your children, send them to an appropriate school but stop trying to impose it on those who do not want it.

dead one

gvn wrote: »

Thanks for posting here, crucamim. Like others on this forum--J C and dead one, to name two--your posting here does more to harm whatever cause you might have than it does to help it.

If my posting doesn't harm, then what makes you to mention my name, even i don't remember i ever had communicated with you. You don't know harm buddy, i live in the world of harm..... My poor posts which even don't make any sense were deleted. It seems those posts contained some harmful bacteria, that's why they were deleted and then there suddenly came a suggestion to delete more posts of "Dead One". Even that suggestion was liked by moderators of this foram. You don't know "harm" buddy coz you don't feel "harm".---For control of the spirit, sitting off in a corner is of no benefit. Because just the way there's no privacy in a gathering, even in solitude thousands of thoughts remain clustered in man's heart and mind. So what difference would there be between solitude, and a gathering! That is, it's very difficult to escape the thoughts of the heart and desires of the spirit. Man ought to turn his attention toward the God.

MOD NOTE
dead one - rather than delete this, let me just say that the other posters mentioned by gvn at least posted on topic. If you don't have something to say about the Irish school system don't post in this thread, or this, and any subsequent posts will be deleted.

Tordelback

crucamim wrote: »

How do you know that it was self-imposed?

Aside from the fact that your faith holds that your Creator imbued you with free will and you live in Ireland in the year 2011, all your posts argue for the right of children to remain segregated from those of different faiths. If that doesn't indicate 'self-imposed'...

I have no problem with people wanting to send their children to single-faith schools, although I think it is deeply misguided, but I strongly believe that it should be on an opt-out basis. The default position should always be for schools to teach about religions, not teach a religion. That way all taxpayers are on an equal footing, with equal access to a core educational curriculum - the simplest, most universal type of school should be the norm. Any person or group that requires additional instruction in a specific faith should fund it on an extra-curricular basis in the same way anyone wanting their children to learn to swim or play the guitar has to do. Nobody is arguing that there should be schools solely for those that swim, and anyone who doesn't want their kid to swim should send their kid to the next town over - that would be daft, no? (Despite the fact that swimming is practical skill that demonstrably saves lives and improves overall health).

Equally if parents really do want to send little Billy or little Tadhg or little Mohammed to a single-faith (or single-sex for that matter, but that's another debate) school, they should have to deal with the extra costs of being oh-so special that they need protection from the Other.

Solair

crucamim wrote: »

They are still controlling the schools which they own. What is wrong with that? If you do not like their schools, do not send your child to any of their schools and please do not interfere with other people's choice of school. Catholic schools did not fall from heaven. They were established by committed Catholics. And the same goes for Protestant schools. What is stopping you anti-Catholics establishing your own schools?

Which they own, but the state pays for all the teachers' salaries, building upkeep, new facilities, etc etc ...

It's an unusual type of ownership.

I'll stop "interfering with other people's choice of school" when they stop spending my taxation money in a totally unaccountable and illogical way and when the state finds itself in a position that it is capable of actually providing adequate and non-religious flavoured education to my kids. Preferably with science, sports, art etc facilities and provided in a building that isn't falling apart due to lack of funds as they've been spread too thinly bending over to every vested interest you can think of.

At present the system is utterly ridiculous.

As it stands I, and many many other tax payers, are paying for pretty much every aspect of this very broken system.

Can you imagine a situation where any other state service was provided this way e.g. let's imagine car tax.

A protestant car tax office, a catholic car tax office, a car tax office just for catholic females and "car tax together" office.

In general, I just find a lot of the "debate" about this issue goes around and around in circles.

The "voluntary" hospitals are another major mess. There's no accountability, duplication, no logic to how resources are organised and the result is really bad service, odd policies and practices etc etc etc.

The fact as it stands is that religious organisations own the schools in a pretty nominal way. If they had to actually run them as private schools in the true sense, the fees would be astronomical and unaffordable to 99% of parents.

The same goes for "private" schools which charge a couple of grand a year. I see that as nothing more than state-sponsored pandering to snobs. Why should the state pay for teachers' salaries at what amounts to the educational equivalent of a golf club. They would laugh at you if someone suggested that the state should pay 90% of membership fees at the K-Klub or Mount Juliet.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

Catholic schools did not fall from heaven.

God not sufficiently omnipotent any more, eh?

crucamim wrote: »

They were established by committed Catholics. And the same goes for Protestant schools.

Oddly enough, evidence suggests quite the opposite -- the vast majority, I believe, of schools controlled by the Vatican and other religious outfits, were paid for by the surrounding community and not from central funding allocated by the religious outfit which took control of the school, once other people had paid for it.

It's rather similar to an estate agent continuing to control a property that he or she might have once sold -- certainly unethical, but as history shows time and again, that's not really a concern for the Vatican.

crucamim

Tordelback wrote: »

The default position should always be for schools to teach about religions, not teach a religion.

Not in a school owned by a religious denomination. All taxpapers have no right to an equal footing in schools only partly funded by taxpayers.

I was not aware that Catholic schools cost the taxpayer more than do State schools. I had been led to believe that the opposite is the case - hence the unwillingness of the government to establish more State schools.

crucamim

Solair wrote: »

Which they own, but the state pays for all the teachers' salaries, building upkeep, new facilities, etc etc ....

When you say "the state", do you mean the taxpayers, most of whom are practising Catholics?

Catholic schools receive payments from the government in return for providing a service - i.e. educating the children of Catholics. Just as road contractors are paid for their services i.e. mending roads.

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

God not sufficiently omnipotent any more, eh?Oddly enough, evidence suggests quite the opposite -- the vast majority, I believe, of schools controlled by the Vatican and other religious outfits, were paid for by the surrounding community and not from central funding allocated by the religious outfit which took control of the school, once other people had paid for it.

It's rather similar to an estate agent continuing to control a property that he or she might have once sold -- certainly unethical, but as history shows time and again, that's not really a concern for the Vatican.

If you buy your house with help from the taxpayer (tax relief due to your mortgage), does that mean that you do not own the house?

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

Not in a school owned by a religious denomination. All taxpapers have no right to an equal footing in schools only partly funded by taxpayers.

Excellent reason for public schools not to be run by religious organisations.

I was not aware that Catholic schools cost the taxpayer more than do State schools. I had been led to believe that the opposite is the case - hence the unwillingness of the government to establish more State schools.

The government actually pays most of the cost of building and running schools.

The vast majority of primary schools in Ireland are privately owned and supported by the different churches. The State pays the bulk of the building and running costs and a local contribution is made towards the running costs.


Source

also;

Traditionally, the site for national schools was provided locally - either directly by the patron or as a result of local fundraising.

Source

so that means that a lot of schools are built by using money provided by the local comunity, catholic and non-catholic alike.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

If you buy your house with help from the taxpayer (tax relief due to your mortgage), does that mean that you do not own the house?

Since everybody claims it and everybody contributes to the tax loss to the government, I think there's a fair case that while everybody owns a small piece of everybody else's house, it probably evens out in the end and ownership is sole.

But more generally, are you suggesting the church should start to pay tax on its earnings, like the rest of us have to?

Excellent idea!

Dades

crucamim wrote: »

Catholic schools receive payments from the government in return for providing a service - i.e. educating the children of Catholics. Just as road contractors are paid for their services i.e. mending roads.

The church doesn't educate our children - teachers paid by the state do. There were only a handful of priests teaching in my RC school and moving forward there will be next to none anywhere. So the only actual link to the church will be the original land - paid for by the people - and the Bishop and his lay-cronies dictating the RE and admissions policy on the school board.

This notion of a catholic or "faith" school you have in your head is nonsense. Priests no longer stalk the corridors and (anecdotally) a large proportion of the actual educators lied about their beliefs to get a job.

Time to change the guard!

getz

Dades wrote: »

The church doesn't educate our children - teachers paid by the state do. There were only a handful of priests teaching in my RC school and moving forward there will be next to none anywhere. So the only actual link to the church will be the original land - paid for by the people - and the Bishop and his lay-cronies dictating the RE and admissions policy on the school board.

This notion of a catholic or "faith" school you have in your head is nonsense. Priests no longer stalk the corridors and (anecdotally) a large proportion of the actual educators lied about their beliefs to get a job.

Time to change the guard!

when was the last time you walked into a school in ireland,and did not see a religious symbol on the classroom wall ?

Dades

getz wrote: »

when was the last time you walked into a school in ireland,and did not see a religious symbol on the classroom wall ?

They're all over hospitals too but you don't treated by nuns!

getz

Dades wrote: »

There'll all over hospitals too but you don't treated by nuns!

thats my fantasy shot,

Mistress 69

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You have no idea how wrong you are.

Credit to Malty_t.

Only just got to watch that. Fascinating stuff indeed. Thanks !

CerebralCortex

Mistress 69 wrote: »

You are saying the beliefs held by people for generations are unverifable...

So in answer to this question, yes I most certainly am.

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Only just got to watch that. Fascinating stuff indeed. Thanks !

crucamim

koth wrote: »

Excellent reason for public schools not to be run by religious organisations.

I agree. State property should not be controlled by religious organisations.

Catholic schools are not public schools. Please stop trying to insinuate that Catholic property is State property.

crucamim

koth wrote: »

The government actually pays most of the cost of building and running schools.

When you say "the government" I think you mean the taxpayers, most of whom are Catholics.

You have avoided the question, which I repeat. "Do Catholic schools cost the taxpayer more than do State schools?"

Turtwig

crucamim wrote: »

When you say "the government" I think you mean the taxpayers, most of whom are Catholics.

Except now they're not actually Catholics any more this is a pretty good representative view of so-called Irish Catholics today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaGj1rJdPKo

Pretty sure they don't regard themselves as Cannibals either :pac:

philologos

robindch wrote: »

But more generally, are you suggesting the church should start to pay tax on its earnings, like the rest of us have to?

Non-profits shouldn't pay tax much in the same way that I don't expect my local GAA club to pay tax. Churches, indeed organisations such as Irish Skeptics, or Atheist Ireland, mosques, synagogues, and gurdwaras shouldn't pay tax in so far as they are non-profits. I.E they don't give dividends to shareholders. Indeed, in terms of freedom of religion, conscience, and expression I think all non-profits should be regarded as that non-profits. Simple.

Unless you are saying that you would be happy for Irish Skeptics to pay tax on their contributions robindch?

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

When you say "the government" I think you mean the taxpayers, most of whom are Catholics.

So by your logic, non Catholics shouldn't be driving on public roads, or treated in hospitals.:rolleyes:

You have avoided the question, which I repeat. "Do Catholic schools cost the taxpayer more than do State schools?"

Yes, because the vast majority of schools are Catholic so just by sheer quantity they cost more.

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

I agree. State property should not be controlled by religious organisations.

Catholic schools are not public schools. Please stop trying to insinuate that Catholic property is State property.

I'm not making any claim about property ownership. I'm only saying that public schools shouldn't be run by religious organisations.

philologos

Malty T: Tell me my eyes are deceiving me. Did you just quote "The Vortex" as an authoritative source?

It only reminds me of how much I miss Donatello

Turtwig

philologos wrote: »

Malty T: Tell me my eyes are deceiving me. Did you just quote "The Vortex" as an authoritative source?

It only reminds me of how much I miss Donatello

Your eyes are deceiving you. I did not quote "The Vortex" (whatever that is?) as an authoritative source. That's what you wanted wasn't it?

Maybe you should get your eyes checked?