Primary School Patronage - trouble ahead

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No.

I thought we were talking here about freedom of choice in education.

Are you more upset about paying for my child's religious education than the fact that some don't have the level of choice they'ed like?

If you're talking about religious education, then a secular school can meet that requirement. But if you want religious instruction, I can see why you'd need a Catholic (or other religion) school.

I Heart Internet

MagicMarker wrote: »

Am I invisible?

I beg your pardon, I was still being unchristian and holding a grudge due to your "zombie jesus" remark earlier.

A school with a christian ethos would certainly (and do from what I know) include respect for the spiritual beliefs of others. That's a fundamental anyway, so you'd have to behave yourself if you wanted in:rolleyes:

robindch

Sharrow wrote: »

there is no way to really opt a child out when they are in one of the 92% of primary schools which are christian.

FYI - around 93% of the country's primary schools are controlled by the institutional catholic church, around 4% by protestant denominations, around 1% by a smattering of other religious organizations and around 2% by Educate Together.

MagicMarker

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I beg your pardon, I was still being unchristian and holding a grudge due to your "zombie jesus" remark earlier.

A school with a christian ethos would certainly (and do from what I know) include respect for the spiritual beliefs of others. That's a fundamental anyway, so you'd have to behave yourself if you wanted in:rolleyes:

So you believe a secular school would teach children to disrespect the spiritual beliefs of others??

Well that's clearly incorrect. Is that the only difference you can think of?

charlietheminxx

MagicMarker wrote: »

Am I invisible?

It's ok, I am too!

I Heart Internet

EGAR wrote: »

Please do not patronise me, IHI, this is a nationwide problem, not just one incidence involving one person.

I'm sorry if my honest answer offends you in some way.

EGAR wrote: »

I do not ram my beliefs down your children's throat so please do me a favour and extend the same courtesy to my child.

Please explain how I do this....I'd love to know.

Ellis Dee

Helloooo! It's 2011 already and this is supposed to be a reasonably modern country. So why has an organisation that has been peddling voodoo-like superstition and ignorance for the best part of two millennia such an important role in educating our children? And in the process covertly and overtly passing on its own twisted values to new generations?

I'm really happy my children could be educated - and very well - without exposure to the Irish education system.

They went to school in Finland, which is internationally recognised as having one of the best education systems in the world.

This article explains some of the factors that have contributed to this success:

http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/artikkelit/pisa-tutkimus/index.html?lang=en




PISA (The Programme for International Student Assessment) is a joint survey of the OECD member countries and a number of other countries.

The tests are administered in schools every three years to 15-year-olds in the domains of mathematics, science, reading literacy and problem-solving skills.

The survey will assess how 15-year-olds master the essential knowledge and skills necessary for work and the quality of life in future society. The survey will not directly assess how well students master the actual contents of the curricula.

Finland’s success in the PISA survey

The skills of Finnish students were among the best in all domains assessed in PISA surveys. The uniformity of students’ performance is a special forte in Finland. The differences between the strongest and weakest results in Finland are among the smallest in the survey. Differences between schools and regions are also remarkably small in Finland. Differences in performance were very slight between various language groups in Finland, and the socio-economic back-ground has a lower impact on students' performance here than in the other PISA countries. A significant implication is that high performance can be achieved with relatively low differences in performance between students.

Finnish students spend less time per week studying than their counterparts in the OECD countries on average and the annual expenditure on education is the OECD average . The reason for Finland’s success is therefore not due to these factors.

Background to Finland’s success

Equal opportunities

The Finnish education system offers everybody equal opportunities for education, irrespective of domicile, sex, economic situation or linguistic and cultural background. The school network is regionally extensive, and there are no sex-specific school services. Basic education is completely free of charge (including instruction, school materials, school meals, health care, dental care, commuting, special needs education and remedial teaching).

Comprehensiveness of education

Basic education encompasses nine years and caters for all those between 7 and 16 years. Schools do not select their students but every student can go to the school of his or her own school district. Students are neither channelled to different schools nor streamed.

Competent teachers

On all school levels, teachers are highly qualified and committed. They require Master’s degrees, and teacher education includes teaching practice. As the teaching profession is very popular in Finland, universities can select the most motivated and talented applicants. Teachers work independently and have strong autonomy towards their work.

Student counselling and special needs education

Individual support for the learning and welfare of pupils is well accommodated, and the national core curriculum contains guidelines for the purpose. Special needs education is integrated into regular education as far as possible. Guidance counsellors help upper grade students in their choice of further education and studying methods.

Encouraging evaluation

The evaluation of the learning outcomes of schools and students is encouraging and supportive by nature. The aim is to produce information that helps both schools and students develop. There are no national testing of learning outcomes, school ranking lists or inspection systems.

Significance of education in society

Finnish society strongly favours education and the population is highly educated by international standards. Education is appreciated and there is a broad political consensus on education policy.

A flexible system based on empowerment

The education system is flexible and the admini-stration is strongly based on delegation and support. Centralised steering is conducted through the aims set by laws and decrees as well as by the national core curriculum. Municipalities are responsible for the organisation of education and the implementation of the aims. Schools and teachers have a lot of independent autonomy in the provision and contents of education.

Co-operation

Interaction and building of partnerships is sought at all levels of activity. There is co-operation for the development of schools between various levels of administration, between schools and between other social actors and schools. Education authorities work in co-operation with teachers’ organisations, subject associations and school leadership organisations. This has provided strong support for development activities.

The one thing that isn't mentioned in the article is that no church has any role in education. Churches are for arranging religious services and that kind of stuff for those who want to attend them. Schools are for learning.:)

I Heart Internet

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you believe a secular school would teach children to disrespect the spiritual beliefs of others??

Well that's clearly incorrect. Is that the only difference you can think of?

No, I believe you would, judging from your earlier post. Completely unprompted you make a disrespectful comment about the god i believe in and one of the core elements of my faith (the resurrection). I don't beleive a secular school would teach this.

A school with a religious ethos would teach about and reinforce the value of marriage, respect for life and natural death. It would teach children that they are answerable to God for bad things they do.....not just the state.

I Heart Internet

charlietheminxx wrote: »

It's ok, I am too!

You can't really say that after just 21 minutes of waiting.

Despite all evidence to the contrary I'm trying to get some work done too.....

.........now, what was your point..

Seachmall

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No.

I thought we were talking here about freedom of choice in education.

We're not. Nobody but yourself is considering this a factor. As stated in the very first response I believe everybody should have the choice.

The question is "who should fund those choices?" This question is not the same as "should they have the choice?". I believe everyone should have a choice of religion, or no religion. I do not believe the state should fund churches or mosques. There is a very clear distinction, and this is the crux of why "freedom of choice in education" is irrelevant to this discussion.



Education of religion in schools is simply not a right. If it were it would conflict with some teachings, the most common example being "Creationism Vs. Evolution". The problems with these conflicts are widely documented and fairly self-evident. Therefore the State is simply not required to enforce religious education in schools, and rightly so. I don't think many disagree with this.



One of the reasons I don't feel religious education should be taught in schools is simply because it's not the schools job to teach one religion over another. Schools should be objective and truthful. If we had one school that taught Catholicism and one school that taught Hinduism, for example, one of those schools would not be truthful. They are too differing beliefs, if one of them is true the other must be false. By the State funding these schools it is funding the promotion of a false belief in at least one of those schools, that would be a failing of the education system. As we cannot objectively decide which is correct the State cannot be seen to fund both. The only way to avoid this is for the state not to include religious preference in it's funded schools.



Another point is simply the number of different religions. It's just not practical to have a school for each religion, nor can you refuse one religion the right to a state-funded school if you allow all religions to be state funded.



The state should have no place in religion or religious beliefs. And the reverse must also apply. You cannot ask the tax-payer to pay for religious education and not give them a say in that religious education.


Having different schools for different religions is also promoting religious segregation, which obviously the State can't support.


Faith is a very personal thing, and it's simply not up to the School system to teach it.


And once again, I'm just not willing to pay for it.

Are you more upset about paying for my child's religious education than the fact that some don't have the level of choice they'ed like?

The only 2 arguments I can see from you are "Freedom of choice" and you're willingness to pay for it. As explained this "Freedom of choice" argument does not apply, it's a strawman. The second on sums up to

"I'm happy to pay for it, therefore everyone should be".

Obviously the flaw in that is major.


This post is fairly badly written, I'm rushing and there's just too much to get through. Apologies.

I Heart Internet

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I can see why you think the way you do - but the problem here is the problem with everything - money.

There isn't enough funding for state schools to be set up to suit every religious vocation or lack thereof. Therefore isn't it better that there are religion neutral schools in place that give children a moral education - which the parents can build on with specific religious education and religion related morals at home IF that is their choosing?

What's a religion neutral school? I'm not trying to be difficult but that's hard to pin down.

Morag

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What's a religion neutral school? I'm not trying to be difficult but that's hard to pin down.

No it's not.

Educate together schools are multi denominational schools.
All creeds and lack of creed is respected and children are taught about the many different religions but not instructed in any.

This means no prayers at the start and end of school, no grace before and after lunch, no learning religious poems as part of english and irish, no making christmas cribs or colouring in stain glass windows as part of art. No learning hymns as part of music.

Children learn that many people have religion and faith and to respect people's beliefs or lack of them.
It is possible to have morals and teach morals with out a religious reference.

Morag

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A school with a religious ethos would teach about and reinforce the value of marriage, respect for life and natural death. It would teach children that they are answerable to God for bad things they do.....not just the state.

Why foist that of on teachers?
Surely you, your family and your parish should be teaching this to your children.

I Heart Internet

Sharrow wrote: »

No it's not.

Educate together schools are multi denominational schools.
All creeds and lack of creed is respected and children are taught about the many different religions but not instructed in any.

This means no prayers at the start and end of school, no grace before and after lunch, no learning religious poems as part of english and irish, no making christmas cribs or colouring in stain glass windows as part of art. No learning hymns as part of music.

Children learn that many people have religion and faith and to respect people's beliefs or lack of them.
It is possible to have morals and teach morals with out a religious reference.

That sounds absolutely fine, if that is what you want for your child. Excellent I'm sure.

I still want to send my child to a school with a catholic ethos and patronage. That's my choice.

I Heart Internet

Sharrow wrote: »

Why foist that of on teachers?
Surely you, your family and your parish should be teaching this to your children.

I've said that I would be doing so in posts above. Faith formation is not just the job of catholic schools. In fact, it's a complete FAIL to leave it up to schools. That doesn't mean that a catholic school should not reinforce this.

jester77

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That sounds absolutely fine, if that is what you want for your child. Excellent I'm sure.

I still want to send my child to a school with a catholic ethos and patronage. That's my choice.

But what about the childs choice?

A lot of posts here and all I have gotten so far from everyone is what they want for their child, but nothing about what the child themself wants.

EGAR

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I've said that I would be doing so in posts above. Faith formation is not just the job of catholic schools. In fact, it's a complete FAIL to leave it up to schools. That doesn't mean that a catholic school should not reinforce this.

I rest my case. I will not engage in any further discussion with you, IHI. I have detailed my situation and provided information regarding mine not being an isolated case as you wanted us to believe.

Separation of State and Church - indeed :mad:.

I Heart Internet

EGAR wrote: »

I rest my case. I will not engage in any further discussion with you, IHI. I have detailed my situation and provided information regarding mine not being an isolated case as you wanted us to believe.

Separation of State and Church - indeed :mad:.

You never explained how I was ramming my beliefs down your child's throat.

Again, I don't see why a catholic school should apologise for instructing a catholic child in the catholic religion.

It should apologise to you if it has disobeyed your express instructions regarding your child. I said that above but you didn't like it.



And finally..........I don't know what IHI means

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't see why a catholic school should apologise for instructing a catholic child in the catholic religion.

Given what the catholic religion is, and what it induces, I think it most certainly should apologize.

Morag

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That sounds absolutely fine, if that is what you want for your child. Excellent I'm sure.

I still want to send my child to a school with a catholic ethos and patronage. That's my choice.

You will still have that choice but you may not be able to send your child to the primary school closest to were you live, you will still have have more of a choice then parent who do not wish to send their child to a catholic school.

The current system tramples of the rights of parents and children, those afforded in our constitution and by the UN charter of Human rights, it has to change.

Morag

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You never explained how I was ramming my beliefs down your child's throat.

By insisting that all the schools which are currently under catholic patronage stay under catholic patronage you are doing just that.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Again, I don't see why a catholic school should apologise for instructing a catholic child in the catholic religion.

Fair enough but do you think that the state should apologise for allowing the catholic church have an monopoly on primary schools?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And finally..........I don't know what IHI means

It is the initials of your user name.

I Heart Internet

Sharrow wrote: »

By insisting that all the schools which are currently under catholic patronage stay under catholic patronage you are doing just that.

I never, ever said that. I started this thread because i thought there would be disquiet amongst many parents when R. Quinn begins to nominate schools for a Godectomy. I still think there will be.

Sharrow wrote: »

Fair enough but do you think that the state should apologise for allowing the catholic church have an monopoly on primary schools?

Perhaps. But up till 15-20 years ago most people would not have questioned this...so, in fairness, it's a fast mosting situation. This Advisor Group/Panel thing was set up to try and address it.

Sharrow wrote: »

It is the initials of your user name.

Thank you. It's getting late:o

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

Given what the catholic religion is, and what it induces, I think it most certainly should apologize.

Please tell me what it is and what it induces.

MagicMarker

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No, I believe you would, judging from your earlier post. Completely unprompted you make a disrespectful comment about the god i believe in and one of the core elements of my faith (the resurrection). I don't beleive a secular school would teach this.

You believe I would what? I'm not looking to take on any students at this present, I'm awfully busy.

You don't believe a secular school would teach children that people like yourself believe Jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead? Why do you think they wouldn't teach this and what are you basing this on?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A school with a religious ethos would teach about and reinforce the value of marriage, respect for life and natural death.

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a secular school would not teach about relationships and a respect for life?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It would teach children that they are answerable to God for bad things they do.....not just the state.

Heinous.

I Heart Internet

MagicMarker wrote: »

You believe I would what? I'm not looking to take on any students at this present, I'm awfully busy.

You asked if I believed that secular schools taught intollerance of other people's religious views. I said I didn't but that I believed you would. Your insulting attitude to my particular set of beliefs in on record in your posts above. I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be as intolerant to others.

MagicMarker wrote: »

You don't believe a secular school would teach children that people like yourself believe Jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead? Why do you think they wouldn't teach this and what are you basing this on?

Sharrow has kindly posted a good description of what Educate Together do above. I don't think it would stretch to teaching that. Certainly not as an article of faith (obviously).

MagicMarker wrote: »

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a secular school would not teach about relationships and a respect for life?

I didn't. I believe I mentioned marriage specifically and life and natural death. Let's not be naive. We both know that a catholic point of view sees these as different and having different implications than others.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Heinous.

I get it, you think my beliefs are rubbish and you can't tolerate them. You've already made that clear. Luckily, I'm quite tolerant of most people's beliefs so I won't be giving you a hard time over it.

Altough I do think it's a bit extreme describing the idea of divine judgement as heinous. I mean it's a fairly commonly held belief and has been for thousands of years. Anyhoooo

desertcircus

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Altough I do think it's a bit extreme describing the idea of divine judgement as heinous. I mean it's a fairly commonly held belief and has been for thousands of years. Anyhoooo

What does the number of people holding a particular belief have to do with whether it's heinous?

MagicMarker

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You asked if I believed that secular schools taught intollerance of other people's religious views. I said I didn't but that I believed you would. Your insulting attitude to my particular set of beliefs in on record in your posts above. I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be as intolerant to others.

This is all rather irrelevant.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Shadow has kindly posted a good description of what Educate Together do above. I don't think it would stretch to teaching that. Certainly not as an article of faith (obviously).

Stretch to teaching that some people believe Jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead? That's not exactly a stretch, it's pretty much the core of the whole religion. You think ET would just leave that part out?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I didn't. I believe I mentioned marriage specifically and life and natural death. Let's not be naive. We both know that a catholic point of view sees these as different and having different implications than others.

I went to a R.C school, I don't recall too much time talking about marriage, what does the Catholic school teach about marriage? That it's only for a man and a woman?

How does a secular school teach differently about 'life and natural death'?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I get it, you think my beliefs are rubbish and you can't tolerate them. You've already made that clear. Luckily, I'm quite tolerant of most people's beliefs so I won't be giving you a hard time over it.

I can tolerate your beliefs, I can't tolerate your kind indoctrinating innocent children who don't know any better and who don't have any choice in the matter.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Altough I do think it's a bit extreme describing the idea of divine judgement as heinous. I mean it's a fairly commonly held belief and has been for thousands of years. Anyhoooo

I think it's heinous to tell a child they'll go to hell if they behave badly based on a fairytale.

I Heart Internet

desertcircus wrote: »

What does the number of people holding a particular belief have to do with whether it's heinous?

It kinda means that it doesn't raise too many eyebrows so its possibly not too controversial and therefore probably not heinous. This thinking holds if you have a generally optimistic view of your fellow man.

But I see your point.

You'd probably like the comment/question of Pope Benedict when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger:

Is truth determined by a majority vote, only for a new 'truth' to be 'discovered' by a new majority tomorrow?

oppenheimer1

starbelgrade wrote: »

There should be no such thing as religious schools in Ireland. Religion has done us fuck all good & has no place in the education of our children... if parents choose to teach their children religion, let them do so, outside of school and at their own expense.

Has it not? Obviously you're not too well up on your history. The reason there are so many catholic schools in the country was because they were the only organisation to attempt to educate the population for a large chunk of the last century.

The country would be vastly different, and not in a good way, if the catholic church had not stepped up to the mark to educate our population back then. Yes there were abuses - but to deny the contribution to health and education of the catholic church and state that they did fuck all good, says more about you than them.

I Heart Internet

MagicMarker wrote: »

This is all rather irrelevant.

No it's not. Are you embarressed by your display of intolerance?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Stretch to teaching that some people believe Jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead? That's not exactly a stretch, it's pretty much the core of the whole religion. You think ET would just leave that part out?

As I say....article of faith....

MagicMarker wrote: »

I went to a R.C school, I don't recall too much time talking about marriage, what does the Catholic school teach about marriage? That it's only for a man and a woman?

I do. Marriage is good for you and for society, etc. Yes marriage is defined by the church as between a man and a woman and that's also the case in national law.

MagicMarker wrote: »

How does a secular school teach differently about 'life and natural death'?

Well how about a concrete example. Say a teacher dies tragically over the weekend. What are the kids told? "Miss X is gone. She won't be coming back. Everyone has different ideas about where she went. Ask you parents and they'll tell you."

MagicMarker wrote: »

I can tolerate your beliefs

I don't think you can....but go on

MagicMarker wrote: »

I can't tolerate your kind indoctrinating innocent children who don't know any better and who don't have any choice in the matter.

My kind?? What kind am I? Am I the kind that doesn't agree with you??
Raising any child involves indoctrination. "Don't hit people", "Be nice to others", "It's wrong to steal", "Put your shoes on the right feet".
Indoctrination is just a fancy word for teaching your child your view of the world so they can have a go at sorting it out for themselves when they grow up.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I think it's heinous to tell a child they'll go to hell if they behave badly based on a fairytale.

This is one of those "Do you still hit your wife?" questions. I believe in divine judgement - not scaring kids.

MagicMarker

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not. Are you embarressed by your display of intolerance?

How does what I think have any relevance to what we're discussing? I'm not the one teaching children.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As I say....article of faith....

Which you can teach in your own time on your own dime.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I do. Marriage is good for you and for society, etc. Yes marriage is defined by the church as between a man and a woman and that's also the case in national law.

Which National law? Argentina? Belgium? Canada? Iceland? The Netherlands? Norway? Portugal? South Africa? Spain? Sweden? Nope, it's legal in all those places?

It's only natural that Ireland is lagging behind in basic human rights, after all it's only been a few years since homosexuality was legalized, much to your dissatisfaction I bet.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Well how about a concrete example. Say a teacher dies tragically over the weekend. What are the kids told? "Miss X is gone. She won't be coming back. Everyone has different ideas about where she went. Ask you parents and they'll tell you."

I don't know, did the teacher have sex before they got married? In which case I'm sure you tell the kids that that teacher is burning in hell.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

My kind?? What kind am I? Am I the kind that doesn't agree with you??
Raising any child involves indoctrination. "Don't hit people", "Be nice to others", "It's wrong to steal", "Put your shoes on the right feet".
Indoctrination is just a fancy word for teaching your child your view of the world so they can have a go at sorting it out for themselves when they grow up.

No, indoctrination is an English word that means teaching someone to uncritically accept your beliefs. I've bolded the important word there. It's why the church targets them when they're young.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This is one of those "Do you still hit your wife?" questions. I believe in divine judgement - not scaring kids.

Wouldn't really have the same effect if the divine judgement consisted of giving someone a chinese burn, I guess?

EGAR

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You'd probably like the comment/question of Pope Benedict when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger

Ah yes, the same Ratzinger who said: **Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.**


Or when visiting Brazil: **The native populations had been silently longing for the Christian faith brought to South America by colonizers.**


The same man who rejects the use of condoms to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa in particular?

The same man who is well known for homophobic statements?

How VERY tolerant his views are......

Aye

starbelgrade

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Has it not? Obviously you're not too well up on your history. The reason there are so many catholic schools in the country was because they were the only organisation to attempt to educate the population for a large chunk of the last century.

The country would be vastly different, and not in a good way, if the catholic church had not stepped up to the mark to educate our population back then. Yes there were abuses - but to deny the contribution to health and education of the catholic church and state that they did fuck all good, says more about you than them.

OK then, if you're such a smart arse... here's a little history lesson for you - now pay close attention, because if you're going to accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about, then maybe you should listen to someone with a bit more knowledge than you on the subject so you might not look like the dumbass at the back of the class.

1. The national education system in Ireland was set up in 1831 by Lord Stanley, not by the Catholic Church.

2. The schools were meant to be mutlidenominational, but that was a battle fought bitterly between the Anglican, Catholic, and Presbyterian churches until they eventually became denominational schools.

3. Due to low attendances at schools, the British government introduced the Irish Education Act of 1892, which attempted to fund free education to children between the ages of six and fourteen.

4. By the end of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church had effectively bullied it's way into being the predominant force in the education of Irish children and basically used Irish schools as a machine by which to spread their religious beliefs throughout the country.

The belief that they "stepped up to the mark" is laughable - the Catholic Church wanted two things when they began teaching in Ireland - firstly to stop all other Churches and denominations from having an influence on what religions were taught in school and secondly to become a powerful & dominant force in both Irish life & politics.

Both of those things they achieved with aplomb.

Testimony to that is the fact that they are still have a huge monopoly on the schools in Ireland and while they do not hold the same political sway that they once did, successive governments have done little or nothing to take education out of the hands of the church & put it into the hands of the state where it really belongs.

Now... are you still paying attention at the back of the class there, or are you still too busy trying impress people by pretending that you know it all already?

I Heart Internet

MagicMarker wrote: »

How does what I think have any relevance to what we're discussing? I'm not the one teaching children.

If you'll recall, you insulted my beliefs, I called you on it and then you confused my calling you on it as my view of what secular schools taught. I corrected you again and you kept trying to draw a veil over your intolerance. I pick people up on those things....it's a thing that I do.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Which you can teach in your own time on your own dime.

I do

MagicMarker wrote: »

it's only been a few years since homosexuality was legalized, much to your dissatisfaction I bet.

Now you're just jumping to your own conclusions

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't know, did the teacher have sex before they got married? In which case I'm sure you tell the kids that that teacher is burning in hell.

You avoided the difficult question huh? (No, is the answer to yours in case you really want one)...I'm waiting.

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, indoctrination is an English word that means teaching someone to uncritically accept your beliefs. I've bolded the important word there. It's why the church targets them when they're young.

The church doesn't send my children to school, I do.



Wouldn't really have the same effect if the divine judgement consisted of giving someone a chinese burn, I guess?[/QUOTE]

No

I Heart Internet

EGAR wrote: »

Ah yes, the same Ratzinger who said: **Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.**


Or when visiting Brazil: **The native populations had been silently longing for the Christian faith brought to South America by colonizers.**

I'm still waiting for you to explain how I'm forcing my beliefs down your childs throat. Are you ever going to explain that comment to me?

Taking quotes out of context is a very weak way of arguing your point really.

EGAR wrote: »

The same man who rejects the use of condoms to halt the spread of AIDS in Africa in particular?

Yes. That guy.

EGAR wrote: »

The same man who is well known for homophobic statements?

No - your confusing him with someone who is homophobic

Morag

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I do. Marriage is good for you and for society, etc. Yes marriage is defined by the church as between a man and a woman and that's also the case in national law.

So what about people who don't undertake the sacrament of marriage as defined by the church?
The sacrament of marriage is very different from the legal civil marriage, and hopefully in the next decade or so will be available to all our citizens.

MagicMarker

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If you'll recall, you insulted my beliefs, I called you on it and then you confused my calling you on it as my view of what secular schools taught. I corrected you again and you kept trying to draw a veil over your intolerance. I pick people up on those things....it's a thing that I do.

Veil?

Your beliefs are utterly retarded.

There, veil removed, and it still has no relevance to what we're talking about.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I do

So why should the state?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You avoided the difficult question huh? (No, is the answer to yours in case you really want one)...I'm waiting.

The difficult question? You mean what to tell the children if a teacher dies? Well, call me crazy, but how about telling the truth? I know that could prove difficult when you've gotten so used to feeding them so much bullshit.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The church doesn't send my children to school, I do.

Well done.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No

Exactly, the whole purpose of fire and brimstone is to scare the kids into submission.

I Heart Internet

Sharrow wrote: »

So people who don't undertake the sacrament of marriage as defined by the church? The sacrament of marriage is very different from the legal civil marriage, and hopefully in the next decade or so will be available to all our citizens.

Yeah. The sacrament is different from the civil bit. I get that (did it not so long ago myself).

If the sacrament bit doesn't float your both you can just do the civil bit - or none of it. Whatever you want.

If you're two men or two women you can have a civil partnership. Irish society defines a marriage as being between a man and a woman. You may not like this and you may disagree with it but that is where we are.

Morag

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah. The sacrament is different from the civil bit. I get that (did it not so long ago myself).

If the sacrament bit doesn't float your both you can just do the civil bit - or none of it. Whatever you want.

If you're two men or two women you can have a civil partnership. Irish society defines a marriage as being between a man and a woman. You may not like this and you may disagree with it but that is where we are.

But civil partnership does not off the same rights and entitlements at civil legal marriage, and that needs to change.

oppenheimer1

starbelgrade wrote: »

OK then, if you're such a smart arse... here's a little history lesson for you - now pay close attention, because if you're going to accuse someone of not knowing what they are talking about, then maybe you should listen to someone with a bit more knowledge than you on the subject so you might not look like the dumbass at the back of the class.

1. The national education system in Ireland was set up in 1831 by Lord Stanley, not by the Catholic Church.

2. The schools were meant to be mutlidenominational, but that was a battle fought bitterly between the Anglican, Catholic, and Presbyterian churches until they eventually became denominational schools.

3. Due to low attendances at schools, the British government introduced the Irish Education Act of 1892, which attempted to fund free education to children between the ages of six and fourteen.

4. By the end of the 19th Century, the Catholic Church had effectively bullied it's way into being the predominant force in the education of Irish children and basically used Irish schools as a machine by which to spread their religious beliefs throughout the country.

The belief that they "stepped up to the mark" is laughable - the Catholic Church wanted two things when they began teaching in Ireland - firstly to stop all other Churches and denominations from having an influence on what religions were taught in school and secondly to become a powerful & dominant force in both Irish life & politics.

Both of those things they achieved with aplomb.

Testimony to that is the fact that they are still have a huge monopoly on the schools in Ireland and while they do not hold the same political sway that they once did, successive governments have done little or nothing to take education out of the hands of the church & put it into the hands of the state where it really belongs.

Now... are you still paying attention at the back of the class there, or are you still too busy trying impress people by pretending that you know it all already?

The british may have legislated but they failed to provide the funding - it was an empty promise. Anyway I was talking about post 1922. The free state did not have the funds to run a proper health or education system, it couldn't take the church out of the schools if it wanted to. It relied on the RCC to fill the gap.

I Heart Internet

MagicMarker wrote: »

Veil?

Your beliefs are utterly retarded.

There, veil removed, and it still has no relevance to what we're talking about.

Thanks for being honest.

MagicMarker wrote: »

So why should the state?

I'm part of the state. I pay my taxes. The current system supports my right to choose. I vote we keep that choice. You could say I'm pro-choice

MagicMarker wrote: »

The difficult question? You mean what to tell the children if a teacher dies? Well, call me crazy, but how about telling the truth? I know that could prove difficult when you've gotten so used to feeding them so much bullshit.

Who's truth?? Your truth? My truth? telling them she's rotting in the ground?? Might wanna run that by the folks at Educate Together first. That would certainly scare the kids.

I Heart Internet

Sharrow wrote: »

But civil partnership does not off the same rights and entitlements at civil legal marriage, and that needs to change.

Fair enough.

KamiKazeKitten

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm part of the state. I pay my taxes. The current system supports my right to choose. I vote we keep that choice. You could say I'm pro-choice

But the current system denies many other people the right to choose. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

Morag

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm part of the state. I pay my taxes. The current system supports my right to choose. I vote we keep that choice. You could say I'm pro-choice

You are pro your own choice but currently the system is denying the choice and rights of other parents and children. The removal of some schools (less then 1/8) from catholic patronage will increase the choice for others and not remove the choice you currently have.

starbelgrade

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The british may have legislated but they failed to provide the funding - it was an empty promise. Anyway I was talking about post 1922. The free state did not have the funds to run a proper health or education system, it couldn't take the church out of the schools if it wanted to. It relied on the RCC to fill the gap.

The lack of funding the government had was not the reason why the Catholic Church continued to run Irish schools - their main driver has & always will the propagation of their religion.

The fact that they educated children in other subjects is simply a by product of that.

Did it do any good? Yes. But at the same time, I also think that the Catholic Church here did more harm than good in how it influenced Irish life, politics, beliefs & sexuality.

So in that way, they have done fuck all good to the country as we would have been a lot better off a little less educated but free from their religious tyranny.

I Heart Internet

KamiKazeKitten wrote: »

But the current system denies many other people the right to choose. Do you not see anything wrong with that?

Yes. The current system is lop-sided and denies convenient options to a lot of people who would prefer to have schools with a different ethos closer to them.

We're in the process of trying to sort that out aren't we. Ruairi is gonna knock a few heads together and tell particular schools to change.

MagicMarker

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm part of the state. I pay my taxes. The current system supports my right to choose. I vote we keep that choice. You could say I'm pro-choice

Of course you do, because it gives you a choice, it doesn't give me a choice.

The state can't cater to everyone, so it should remain neutral and show no favourtism as outlined in our Nation's Constitution, such is the beauty of a fair and secular society.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Who's truth?? Your truth? My truth? telling them she's rotting in the ground?? Might wanna run that by the folks at Educate Together first. That would certainly scare the kids.

Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

Do you think children are incapable of dealing with the truth? Why feel the need to lie?

I Heart Internet

Sharrow wrote: »

You are pro your own choice but currently the system is denying the choice and rights of other parents and children. The removal of some schools (less then 1/8) from catholic patronage will increase the choice for others and not remove the choice you currently have.

No - as I've said again and again. I support the choice of every parent to have the right to send their child to a school of their choice, with a particular ethos of their choice. I support the right of any person or group of people to start any new school according to their own ethos. I support communities where the majority want to change the ethos of their school.

I don't support the forced change of patronage of schools. Although I can see that at this stage society might have to give secular schooling a leg-up in certain parts of the country.

Why doesn't Educate Together have any secondary schools btw? What's with that??

I Heart Internet

MagicMarker wrote: »

Of course you do, because it gives you a choice, it doesn't give me a choice.

Yes it does. Pick a school, start a new one, home school...

MagicMarker wrote: »

Now who's putting words in who's mouth?

Do you think children are incapable of dealing with the truth? Why feel the need to lie?

I am. My mistake
As you said yourself - children need a coherent view of the world.
Again, I ask who's truth???? My truth is that her soul has probably gone to heaven. I have zero proof of that.

samina

My two cents if anyone is interested is that schools should stay as they are. From what I see on a yearly basis the majority of children make communion and confirmation with their school. Majority rules as far as I'm concerned and if you don't like it, teach your chdren your own beliefs or lack of outside of the education system. Take the responsibility on yourself.
My children go to a church of Ireland school and we are catholic, I go to a church of Ireland church for their Christmas carol service and guess what? I don't burst into flames. I also take them to classes outside of school for their communion and confirmation. I made that decision, because in my opinion it was a better school. I can't understand why the whole education system has to change to pacify a minority.