Proposal to limit Catholic Church’s role in primary schools.

Jcarroll07

StudentDad wrote: »

[L]

preparation for religious ceremonies is wrong and this preparation should occur off school premises outside of school hours.

SD[/QUOTE]

Should that not depend on what the people what themselves do they not have that right. And if they do not have that right can you please point out where this is said. Other wise people who want it do have the right to make that choice.

StudentDad

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

[L]

preparation for religious ceremonies is wrong and this preparation should occur off school premises outside of school hours.

SD

Should that not depend on what the people what themselves do they not have that right. And if they do not have that right can you please point out where this is said. Other wise people who want it do have the right to make that choice.[/Quote]

Certainly they have that right. So long as they are in an entirely private school, funded by the church and parents of those children alone.

Of course the teachers would have to follow the curriculum laid down by the State.

I see no reason why the taxpayer should fund the indoctrination of children in a particular religious opinion.

SD

lividduck

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

secularism is a belief that there is no god ect. So there for it should get no funding from the state. If Christian who have a belief in god get no funds. So why should people of another belief (of no god) be allowed have funds.

But this is kind of going around in circles. People of all beliefs (christian or secularists) if they want have the right to the education including or excluding religious education with the help of state fund. To take that right away from any group is simply discrimination.

Wrong.Secularism is the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element .
Non denominational education discriminates against no-one, thats the point of it.














[URL="javascript:;"][/URL][URL="javascript:;"][/URL]

Anita Blow

Even avoiding the whole emotive indoctrination/church's history argument, we can't ignore the fact that we are rapidly falling down the rankings in terms of our education. Literacy and Numeracy rates among children is woeful for a modern country and there's no doubt that the fact that a large chunk of time is taken out of the school day to prepare children for communion/confirmation is a huge reason for this.
That needs to be stopped. If parents are that determined to instill the faith in their children then they can do so outside of school hours.
We are now a country which has many faiths and even those who lack a belief and it is the governments duty to ensure everyone is catered for. A muslim, jewish or atheist student shouldn't have their education disadvantaged in Primary School due to the class spending large chunks of the day preparing for a christian ritual. Likewise, a child shouldn't be disadvantaged when applying for a school due to their religion, as does happen with those who aren't catholic.

The state's role is to simply provide an education for children, primarily academic but also social to an extent. If people would like to include religion in that, I have no problem as long as it is religious education, not religious instruction. Primary School religious education should be modelled on Secondary School education where the child is instructed on all religions and spirituality which really does help in the child's development.
If parents wish for their child to receive catholic instruction then they can send them to a private catholic school like other countries, and like any other religion here.

Considering that we now have taxpayers of many beliefs contributing to the exchequer funding for education, the state cannot favour one religion over the other. All it can do is favour no specific religion, but provide a religious education on all of them, while instructing in none of them.

Corkfeen

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

You don't believe every thing to the word that is in the bible. Most sane people know this. And i like many other i'm sure coped on to this at a pretty early age. The kids are not told that every thing is absolutely true you and i both know that.
You say there is no basis for the beliefs. But then there is no basis to show the beliefs not to be true. (in regard to the existence of god, jesus and an after life. Obviously not things like Adam and Eve and other things along those lines.)

Personally, I have severe issues with a religious organisation that claims that homosexual behaviour is a sin, holding such a major role in children's lives. There's also the factor that teachers can be discriminated against on religious grounds if they are homosexual hence preventing them from getting a job, if it came out that an individual was an atheist, the same technically applies.

And secularism is more to do with being neutral on religious stances and not giving a priority to any, not allowing them to hold a powerful influence etc. In fact many religious people are in favour of it. It has nothing to do with atheism.

If a person wishes for their child to be indoctrinated and do communions and confirmation etc. I'd view that as the parent's duty rather than a teachers...

Ghost Buster

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

So it's ok to stop "indoctrination" of catholic and christian view. But not stop indoctrination of secularism in to society.

Indoctrination of secularism into society:D:D:D
You have no idea what it is do you?
You think its the same as atheism dont you?
:P

Jcarroll07

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Indoctrination of secularism into society:D:D:D
You have no idea what it is do you?
You think its the same as atheism dont you?
:P

No and no to your two questions there is a difference. Should have phrased that post differently. Atheism is the belief. Secularism is the removal of all thing of a religious dimention from government and public works.
Wouldn't be talking about it if i didn't know what it ment:rolleyes:
Any ways im all argued out on this:eek:
until next time:D:D

Ghost Buster

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

No and no to your two questions there is a difference. Should have phrased that post differently. Atheism is the belief. Secularism is the removal of all thing of a religious dimention from government and public works.
Wouldn't be talking about it if i didn't know what it ment:rolleyes:
Any ways im all argued out on this:eek:
until next time:D:D

No you cannot possibly understand secularism if you think one can be indoctrinated into it and atheism isnt a belief any more than bald is a hair colour.:rolleyes:

safarigirl

I think that the religion classes shouldn;t be taken out of Catholic schools, but Communion and Confermation should. This is why children who arent Catholic are made to feel left out. Its easy to say dont send your child to a Catholic school, but when there is no other option it is not fare. My child may end up being the only non Catholic in a Catholic school.
What on earth is it all about, the dress, the money, the party, where does it say anything about these things in the bible. ? Children should wear school uniforms, get no money, and presents of bibles and Crosses.!!!!! See how much they brag about making there communion then!!!

DublinWriter

padd b1975 wrote: »

And if parents feel religion is a load of nonsense, they are free to get their children educated somewhere else.

It's not like there is a rake load of choice in this country.

iguana

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Atheism is the belief.

Ah no, atheism is a lack of belief. It's what the word means.

'A' - without
'theism' - belief in a deity/deities.
'Atheism' - without belief in a deity/deities.

It's no more a belief than not believing in unicorns, Santa and fairies is a belief.

padd b1975

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's not like there is a rake load of choice in this country.

There is some choice and getting better all the time for those who seek it.

I wonder did the anti catholic education parents give much consideration to the choices available in their locality when setting up home.

Osgoodisgood

padd b1975 wrote: »

I wonder did the anti catholic education parents give much consideration to the choices available in their locality when setting up home.

Gee thanks. If I like the areas where the sky-fairy parents have a monopoly I can just p1ss off huh?

Anyway I can always build my own school can't I! :rolleyes: (Thanks Jakkass)

padd b1975

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Gee thanks. If I like the areas where the sky-fairy parents have a monopoly I can just p1ss off huh?

Anyway I can always build my own school can't I! :rolleyes: (Thanks Jakkass)

Reported.

marty1985

iguana wrote: »

Ah no, atheism is a lack of belief. It's what the word means.

'A' - without
'theism' - belief in a deity/deities.
'Atheism' - without belief in a deity/deities.

It's no more a belief than not believing in unicorns, Santa and fairies is a belief.

Not strictly true. "A-" did not simply mean just "without", and the word atheism was not traditionally understood as such. It all comes back to Anthony Flew.

Anthony Flew: I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'.

The word for gods was "theos". The word for "no/without/is not" - generally the negation of a particular object, was the prefix "a-". Hence, they gave us "atheos" which means "no gods".

These neatly gave us two opposing propositions:

Theos - there is a god
Atheos - there is no god

Belief is "the state in which a person accepts a proposition or premise as true". So, when it comes to holding one of these views, we end up with:

The-ism - belief that there is a god
Athe-ism - belief that there is no god

Atheism as a lack of belief is a relatively new concept that faces a few challenges which are recognised by atheist philosophers: It is not what is understood by 'atheism'; Dictionaries define atheism positively as disbelief or denial; Far fewer people identify as atheists than lack belief in God. Simply put, it has not been the understood meaning of atheism throughout history, so JCarroll is not strictly wrong by adhering to the definition dictionaries still provide and most people still use. You are going with "atheism" not as "athe-ism" but "a-theism" (non-theism), which is the New Atheist way, the Anthony Flew way.

Anthony Flew: The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually.

In fact, a look at the etymology of the word atheist helps. The word Atheist was not derived from the root word Theist, to which an A- prefix was attached. The word Atheist actually came along 100 years before the word Theist, and is derived from the root word Atheos, to which an -ist suffix was attached.

-ist = believer
Atheos = no God
Theos = God

Athe(os)-ist = believes there is no God
The(os)-ist = believes there is a God

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

There is some choice and getting better all the time for those who seek it.

I wonder did the anti catholic education parents give much consideration to the choices available in their locality when setting up home.

90% of primary schools are under church control. Thats not great "choice".

Wanting your child educated one way does not mean they are nessecarily "anti" the choices of others.

Did it ever occur to you that being able to afford a home is the primary factor influencing most peoples choice, rather than being able to pick and choose....?

dvpower

padd b1975 wrote: »

Reported.

To who? Your P.P.?

lividduck

padd b1975 wrote: »

There is some choice and getting better all the time for those who seek it.

I wonder did the anti catholic education parents give much consideration to the choices available in their locality when setting up home.

So being Athiest, agnostic,Muslim,hindu,Jehova,Methodist,Unitarian etc makes you "Anti-Catholic"?
You are some piece of work!

padd b1975

Nodin wrote: »

90% of primary schools are under church control. Thats not great "choice".

Wanting your child educated one way does not mean they are nessecarily "anti" the choices of others.

Did it ever occur to you that being able to afford a home is the primary factor influencing most peoples choice, rather than being able to pick and choose....?

Agreed, choice is not great but slowly getting better.



I said anti catholic education not anti choice.


What factor do education services play in home making decisions in your opinion?

padd b1975

lividduck wrote: »

So being Athiest, agnostic,Muslim,hindu,Jehova,Methodist,Unitarian etc makes you "Anti-Catholic"?
You are some piece of work!

Thats quite an interpretation you have there.

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

Agreed, choice is not great but slowly getting better.

It's only really been on the agenda over the last 2-3 years.

padd b1975 wrote: »

I said anti catholic education not anti choice..

Why would they be anti-catholic education, just because they don't want their children educated that way?

padd b1975 wrote: »

What factor do education services play in home making decisions in your opinion?

That would depend on the money available to the people involved. If you your choice of location is limited by the amount of cash you have, its hardly going to be that high.

Osgoodisgood

padd b1975 wrote: »

Reported.

My Jakkass reference was referring to that well known recommender of the self funded, self built, non faith (non nonsense) education centre. Ladies and gents I give you, the pride of Maynooth, philogos (aka Jakkass).

Other than that feel free to report until I repent.

mambo

Majority prefers schools not run by church

THREE OUT of four parents would prefer to send children to primary schools run by patron bodies other than churches, according to a poll. However, a majority of parents surveyed still wants religion taught in school.

The Red C poll, carried out for the Irish Primary Principals Network, found that 30 per cent of parents would prefer to send children to a primary school run by Vocational Education Committees on behalf of the State.

Some 27 per cent of parents would opt for church-run primary schools, 24 per cent would choose multidenominational primary schools and 20 per cent would opt for State-run primary schools.

More at http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0430/1224315363760.html

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

My Jakkass reference was referring to that well known recommender of the self funded, self built, non faith (non nonsense) education centre. Ladies and gents I give you, the pride of Maynooth, philogos (aka Jakkass).

Other than that feel free to report until I repent.

Just saw this.

Firstly, I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm an evangelical Christian.

Secondly, The only thing I defend is a free choice of school for parents. That means secular schools as well as faith schools. I have objections to one church dominating education.

Thirdly, yes I went to NUI Maynooth, I enjoyed my time there