School patronage

expectationlost

SpaceTime wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, I think they should just open the market.

Why should it be limited to charitable bodies? It could be a huge boost to tourism and the Irish hotels industry if they could make it more hotel friendly.

Marriage is a contract between a couple. I can't really see why that can't be facilitated by anyone or any organisation that meets certain educational standards about the whole solminising process.

I can't really see any reason why you couldn't have people doing this as a commercial venture. We do all other legal services that way : solicitors certainly aren't charitable bodies !

The alternative would be to give the role to local authorities. It seems like a logical thing for city and town halls to do as is the case in France

Why it's a role that the HSE were given is beyond me! I can't think of anything less romantic or stranger than being married by the HSE!

because according to the social protection department we are all fraudsters, except the guy who actually is.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

In their account of themselves, they say that they advocate atheism and reason, they oppose superstition and supernaturalism and they favour an ethical, secular society.

I would consider that humanist.

Hotblack Desiato

SpaceTime wrote: »

Why it's a role that the HSE were given is beyond me! I can't think of anything less romantic or stranger than being married by the HSE!
It's about as logical as giving it to An Post and frankly that might even make more sense as they've a vast office network and an ability to post the invitations !

Because they register births, marriages and deaths.

We were married by the HSE registrar in Grand Canal St and the ceremony was everything we wanted it to be. Humanists weren't allowed solemnise marriages then, but we probably wouldn't have gone for that even if it had been allowed. There is an element of woo about humanist ceremonies and we don't like that. Neither my wife nor I would identify as humanists.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

I would consider that humanist.

Not all people who hold those positions would agree with you, though:

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

. . . Neither my wife nor I would identify as humanists.

Signficantly, Atheist Ireland itself doesn't agree with you, as I understand it. Their complaint is not that they are a humanist organisation, unfairly prevented from celebrating legally-recognised weddings by the need to register as a charity, but rather that they aren't a humanist organisation, and shouldn't have to be, in order to have their wedding celebrations legally recognised. They object to the fact that the law identifies humanism as a necessary attribute.

Humanism is a philosophical position. Broadly speaking, humanists affirm that humanity, or human nature, has a unique inherent value and they affirm the importance of human beings, humanity, human relationships, human achievements, human potential, etc. Secular humanists identify humanity as the paramount source of value, thereby excluding theism. Religious humanists do not go so far, merely asserting that humanity has signficant value, but not necessarily that it has greater value than anything else.

In the present context I think it's telling that the Humanist Association of Ireland was celebrating weddings before their celebrations secured any kind of legal or state recognition. They did that because, as humanists, they believe that a marriage has an intrinsic reality and value that was worth celebrating whether or not the celebration attracted any kind of state recognition. (And churches, of course, typically take the same position, celebrating weddings whether or not their celebrations are state-recognised.) Atheist Ireland, so far as I know, has never done this, and doesn't do it even today, which I think reflects the fact that, though AI may include many humanists among its members, AI as a body is not itself a humanist organisation, and does not attempt to give effect to humanist principles and beliefs.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not all people who hold those positions would agree with you, though:


Signficantly, Atheist Ireland itself doesn't agree with you, as I understand it. Their complaint is not that they are a humanist organisation, unfairly prevented from celebrating legally-recognised weddings by the need to register as a charity, but rather that they aren't a humanist organisation, and shouldn't have to be, in order to have their wedding celebrations legally recognised. They object to the fact that the law identifies humanism as a necessary attribute.

Humanism is a philosophical position. Broadly speaking, humanists affirm that humanity, or human nature, has a unique inherent value and they affirm the importance of human beings, humanity, human relationships, human achievements, human potential, etc. Secular humanists identify humanity as the paramount source of value, thereby excluding theism. Religious humanists do not go so far, merely asserting that humanity has signficant value, but not necessarily that it has greater value than anything else.

In the present context I think it's telling that the Humanist Association of Ireland was celebrating weddings before their celebrations secured any kind of legal or state recognition. They did that because, as humanists, they believe that a marriage has an intrinsic reality and value that was worth celebrating whether or not the celebration attracted any kind of state recognition. (And churches, of course, typically take the same position, celebrating weddings whether or not their celebrations are state-recognised.) Atheist Ireland, so far as I know, has never done this, and doesn't do it even today, which I think reflects the fact that, though AI may include many humanists among its members, AI as a body is not itself a humanist organisation, and does not attempt to give effect to humanist principles and beliefs.

that's because AI is humanist not Humanist.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

that's because AI is humanist not Humanist.

A typographical preference is not a difference in meaning!

recedite

AI would have to declare that "its principal objects are secular, ethical and humanist" and also that it is not "a body that promotes a political cause".
A religion, does not have these requirements, for example spiritualists, witches etc... whose only motivation is to make money out of the ceremonies.

I'd prefer to see AI stick to its principles on this. If its a choice between joining the hypocrites, or working towards changing the state's rules, then I prefer the latter. Which is in itself a political cause!

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

AI would have to declare that "its principal objects are secular, ethical and humanist" and also that it is not "a body that promotes a political cause".
A religion, does not have these requirements, for example spiritualists, witches etc... whose only motivation is to make money out of the ceremonies.

I'd prefer to see AI stick to its principles on this. If its a choice between joining the hypocrites, or working towards changing the state's rules, then I prefer the latter. Which is in itself a political cause!

I’m surprised to find you categorising those who profess to be secular, ethical and humanist as “hypocrites”, recedite. Do you want to expand on that a bit, or maybe retract it?

More seriously, I think we have been not mentioning an obvious and significant distinction between (a) the churches and the Humanist Association on the one hand, and (b) Atheist Ireland (and possibly other bodies) on the other. The difference is this: the churches and the humanists have a track record of celebrating weddings which are not legally recognised. Atheist Ireland, although perfectly free to do this, has never done it. Why? And what conclusions can we draw from this?

Recedite suggests that churches, or at least some of them, celebrate wedding with the “only motivation” of making money. He doesn’t suggest that the Humanists have the same motivation, though of course they obviously could. He doesn’t offer any evidence that the churches have no other motivation. Nor does he suggest that AI’s desire to celebrate legally-recognised weddings might have an equally mercenary motivation, though obviously it might.

What he fails to consider is that either the churches or the humanists celebrate weddings because they think it’s an inherently good thing to do. But that’s an obvious possible motivation, and it would explain why they celebrate weddings even without legal recognition.

Go back for a second to Hotblack’s post, where the question of wedding celebrations was introduced into this thread. Hotblack talks of “allow[ing] HAI to conduct weddings, but not AI”. In fact AI is allowed to conduct wedding; they would infringe no law by organising and conducting a wedding ceremony, any more than the HAI infringed any law by organising weddings in the days before humanist ceremonies were legally recognised.

The issue is not whether AI is allowed to conduct weddings; it’s whether weddings conducted by AI (or by a person nominated by AI) will secure legal recognition. And I think demands for the recognition of weddings celebrated under the auspices of an organisation which has never celebrated weddings in the past and doesn’t celebrate them even today don’t have quite the same moral and political traction as demands for the recognition of weddings that are actually being celebrated. There are communities of people who celebrate their weddings in churches, synagogues, etc; why should those weddings not be recognised? There are communities of people who celebrate their weddings in humanist ceremonies; why should those weddings not be recognised? But there is no community of people celebrating their weddings in ceremonies organised by Atheist Ireland; the question of whether those weddings would need to be recognised doesn’t seem to me to be of any real-world significance.

If AI wants to secure the same treatment as the HAI, the obvious course is to do what the HAI did; start celebrating weddings, demonstrate that there is a demand for atheist weddings, show that people are celebrating atheist weddings and are disadvantaged by not having them recognised. Then, if recognition is still refused, they can say they are being treated unfairly by comparison with the HAI and the churches.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

A typographical preference is not a difference in meaning!

Did Moses come down from the mountain in his triumph or in his Triumph? :P

silverharp

whats all this got to do with school patronage?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m surprised to find you categorising those who profess to be secular, ethical and humanist as “hypocrites”, recedite. Do you want to expand on that a bit, or maybe retract it?

HAI are being hypocritical on this issue. They welcome a law which allows them to solemnise marriages, but which treats them less favourably than religious groups. They claim to not be a politically campaigning organisation so as not to fall foul of this unjust law, but their own constitution says one of their aims is to campaign for political change and they are now embarking on just such a campaign over school patronage.

the churches and the humanists have a track record of celebrating weddings which are not legally recognised. Atheist Ireland, although perfectly free to do this, has never done it. Why? And what conclusions can we draw from this?

That a pseudo-legal ceremony which is not legally valid is a load of woo, and AI are an anti-woo organisation.

Nor does he suggest that AI’s desire to celebrate legally-recognised weddings might have an equally mercenary motivation, though obviously it might.

Where have AI ever expressed such a desire?
Their objection is that non-religious organisations are subject to a series of rules which religious bodies are exempt from (and let's not even go there into what is a 'valid' religious body or not or why the supposedly secular state should be touching that question with a bargepole.)

Hotblack talks of “allow[ing] HAI to conduct weddings, but not AI”. In fact AI is allowed to conduct wedding; they would infringe no law by organising and conducting a wedding ceremony, any more than the HAI infringed any law by organising weddings in the days before humanist ceremonies were legally recognised.

It's pointless though - a sham - without legal validity.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Recedite suggests that churches, or at least some of them, celebrate wedding with the “only motivation” of making money.....

Yes, such as this guy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are communities of people who celebrate their weddings in humanist ceremonies; why should those weddings not be recognised? But there is no community of people celebrating their weddings in ceremonies organised by Atheist Ireland

HAI used to do a small number of weddings. I'm not sure how many of the large number of couples hiring a Humanist "marriage solemniser" nowadays are signed up members of the Humanist "community" but I suspect its a small minority. Most couples will just be looking for a secular celebrant who is willing to travel to the couple's own choice of venue.
If an AI representative is a total stranger, and has no civil marriage registration/contract in his/her back pocket, then there is no point in them showing up at a wedding.

I'm not being critical of HAI; sometimes it is useful for two or more allied organisations to follow a slightly different tack in the pursuit of a similar overall goal.

Similarly I would still support the ET schools in pursuing a multi-denominational school patronage model, even though I think the AI position of campaigning for openly non-denominational schools is less hypocritical. The idealistic approach and the pragmatic approach can be complimentary to each other when pursued separately. Maybe some day we will have a night of the long knives, but not yet

There are different levels of hypocrisy; sometimes minor hypocrisy is justifiable when the rules are unfairly stacked against you. Such as in the above cases.
Other times it is not justifiable, such as the way major religions conspired in the past to prevent minor religions from being allowed to legally solemnise marriages, and currently support legislation which prevents AI from doing so unless they declare themselves to be humanist and apolitical. The major religions would not agree themselves to those those same demands. They reserve their right to try to influence public policy in matters such as gay marriage and dept. of education schools admission policies. Which I have no problem with. Their hypocrisy is in their seeking to have different rules applied to others.

expectationlost

silverharp wrote: »

whats all this got to do with school patronage?

yeah this thread seems to become a catch all , but its question of whether the HAI are acting politically, I think they are but here's a solemnising register thread to continue that vein of discussion http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=91225953

(I wonder how involved HAI types are/were in Educate Together?)

Religious schools’ preference for baptised children criticised

Humanist body to place adverts calling for end to discrimination


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religious-schools-preference-for-baptised-children-criticised-1.2151765?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


http://humanism.ie/vote/

Baptism Poster Campaign http://humanism.ie/2015/03/baptism-poster-campaign/

Hotblack Desiato

Think they could have done a way better job on the poster too wordy and doesn't have the impact it should

Something like 'Lucy is bottom of the waiting list for her local school - because she's not baptised' might be better

It's also obviously a US stock image

I'm sure most people seeing these posters will just think 'well why don't they just feckin' baptise her then' - but that's not HAI's fault!

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Well if they favour an ethical society, they are excluding sadists and perhaps the advocates of Nietzche, who might also be atheists. In other words, once you move into "ethical atheist" or "Atheist +" territory you are into the same territory as Humanists, albeit with less of the religious mannerisms.

I'd have thought that registering as a "third party" with the public standards authority was to facilitate AI to conduct political campaigns and receive political donations. At the same time, this political aspect is what excludes them from acting as marriage solemnisers. Religions are allowed to be political, but secular bodies are not (if they want to be marriage solemnisers)

All of which makes it slightly bizarre that HAI are the ones embarking on the schools baptismal cert campaign. A public policy campaign would surely fall under category 4 below, from the explanatory notes pdf on the "third parties" register... ie a political campaign

this Third Party thing seems mostly related to elections but as you say rule 4 doesn't mention elections, its also related to donations and HAI takes donations http://humanism.ie/getinvolved/donate/ but as a registered charity

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That a pseudo-legal ceremony which is not legally valid is a load of woo, and AI are an anti-woo organisation . . . . It's pointless though - a sham - without legal validity.

Marriage ceremonies without legal recognition are clearly not a "load of woo" or a "sham" to the people who celebrate them, or who participate in them. If you, or anyone else, takes that view you are of course free not to celebrate or participate in such ceremonies, but you can hardly expect to be taken seriously when you simultaneously say that such a ceremony would be a "load of woo" and demand that, if you did celebrate such a ceremony, it should be accorded legal recognition. Whatever rules you might adopt for identifying the ceremonies that should be accorded legal recognition, it seems perfectly reasonable to exclude ceremonies celebrated by people who think they are a load of woo.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

HAI used to do a small number of weddings. I'm not sure how many of the large number of couples hiring a Humanist "marriage solemniser" nowadays are signed up members of the Humanist "community" but I suspect its a small minority. Most couples will just be looking for a secular celebrant who is willing to travel to the couple's own choice of venue.

If an AI representative is a total stranger, and has no civil marriage registration/contract in his/her back pocket, then there is no point in them showing up at a wedding.

Just like there was no point in people showing up at an unrecognised HAI wedding? And yet the HAI did celebrate them, and people did turn up to them. Perhaps it was only a small number - I have no figures, and if you do now would be a good time to share them - but so what? There is still a fundamental difference between the positions of the HAI, motivated by a humanist philosophy, celebrating weddings for people, and the position of someone like Hotblack, denouncing those weddings as a "load of woo".

Hotblack's view is that the only value or significance a wedding ceremony can have derives from legal recognition; without that, it is meaningless, woo, a sham. Given that view, it is nonsense to suggest that weddings celebrated by AI or an AI nominee should attract legal recognition, since the involvement of AI or its nominee brings exactly nothing of significance to the wedding. The churches and the HAI achieve recognition for their ceremonies precisely because people feel that the religious/humanist dimension of the wedding expressed by the celebrant and the community he represents is significant, and they want to celebrate their weddings in a way which engages this significance. If there is a community which feels the same need for an atheist dimension to their weddings which Atheist Ireland can bring, I'm not seeing any evidence of it. And if there is such a community, AI has so far shown zero interest in meeting its needs or aspirations. Which, if they hold Hotblack's view of the matter, is completely understandable.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Marriage ceremonies without legal recognition are clearly not a "load of woo" or a "sham" to the people who celebrate them, or who participate in them. If you, or anyone else, takes that view you are of course free not to celebrate or participate in such ceremonies, but you can hardly expect to be taken seriously when you simultaneously say that such a ceremony would be a "load of woo" and demand that, if you did celebrate such a ceremony, it should be accorded legal recognition. Whatever rules you might adopt for identifying the ceremonies that should be accorded legal recognition, it seems perfectly reasonable to exclude ceremonies celebrated by people who think they are a load of woo.

Where did I demand that?
There are laws in place, the laws should be fair and should not favour religious bodies over non-religious bodies, or certain religious bodies over others.
They shouldn't call it a "marriage" if it's not legally valid.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They shouldn't call it a "marriage" if it's not legally valid.

Does the State have any greater right to a monopoly on the word 'marriage' than a religion? Or anyone else who wants to use it to describe some sort of union?

Dades

expectationlost wrote: »

Humanist body to place adverts calling for end to discrimination


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religious-schools-preference-for-baptised-children-criticised-1.2151765?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


http://humanism.ie/vote/

Baptism Poster Campaign http://humanism.ie/2015/03/baptism-poster-campaign/

I think those posters are pretty good. Not too in-your-face. Not too many words to read if you're on a DART or wherever.

Don't quite understand the point of sending a text to show your support. And the wording below that looks like it was taken from a competition describing your text as an "entry".

galljga1

My daughter is in 5th class in a small catholic school. Due to the size of the school, 5th and 6th are in the same classroom so she is exposed to what 6th class are going through in preparation for confirmation. Every day (maybe week) the main gripe is religion. She is quite logical and finds christianity ridiculous. It came to choosing a name last week and the principal was quite forceful about how important it was to choose name of a saint with whom you had a connection. My daughter could not see the point as the name will not appear on any official document.

I foresee difficulty next year when she is due to be confirmed. We got over the whole communion situation with the promise of a big party, loads of presents, money etc. The same obviously applies to confirmation as I would rather her be the 'norm' rather than the only one in the class not being confirmed even though I think the whole thing is mumbo jumbo. She is in two minds about whether to leave religion class altogether or to just putt up and shut up.

So either she gives up religion class altogether which I think is going to involve a showdown with the head and potentially her feeling left out. Alternatively, she just keeps her head down and just goes along with it which will cause her much internal strife but will not single her out.

Any advice would be welcome. Also, if the head gets bolshy and starts quoting the schools mission statement, catholic ethos etc, from a legal point of view, how are we covered if we request that my daughter be omitted from religious activity?

lazygal

Every parent is entitled to opt their children out of religious instruction, regardless of any 'difficulties' a school might put in your way. Is your daughter making her confirmation? If we send ours to a catholic school, we plan on having some sort of celebration at the time of communion and confirmation for them if they want one, probably a weekend away somewhere much more exciting than mass with a bishop.
Why are you concerned about her 'fitting in'? While I agree that some aspects of school are about fitting in, its not something I think I'd worry about if it involved pretending I was okay with indoctrination. Children will always be marked out by something, wrong hairstyle, glasses, lives too far from school for loads of friends to visit, parents are too old or too young or otherwise diffferent, has loads of siblings, has no siblings - what it wrong about not fitting in with something? I don't think its healthy to send my child the message that we as a family go along with things we don't really believe in so we fit in with the norm. The 'what'll the neighbours think' attitude is very unhealthy.

expectationlost

Dades wrote: »

I think those posters are pretty good. Not too in-your-face. Not too many words to read if you're on a DART or wherever.

Don't quite understand the point of sending a text to show your support. And the wording below that looks like it was taken from a competition describing your text as an "entry".

yes another charity campaign recently decided to do the exact same thing, a poster with text you support to a shortcode... in order to forward the total number of texters to the minister.... that is if they are not using it as a method to gather phone numbers of people....

galljga1

lazygal wrote: »

Every parent is entitled to opt their children out of religious instruction, regardless of any 'difficulties' a school might put in your way. Is your daughter making her confirmation? If we send ours to a catholic school, we plan on having some sort of celebration at the time of communion and confirmation for them if they want one, probably a weekend away somewhere much more exciting than mass with a bishop.
Why are you concerned about her 'fitting in'? While I agree that some aspects of school are about fitting in, its not something I think I'd worry about if it involved pretending I was okay with indoctrination. Children will always be marked out by something, wrong hairstyle, glasses, lives too far from school for loads of friends to visit, parents are too old or too young or otherwise diffferent, has loads of siblings, has no siblings - what it wrong about not fitting in with something? I don't think its healthy to send my child the message that we as a family go along with things we don't really believe in so we fit in with the norm. The 'what'll the neighbours think' attitude is very unhealthy.

She will decide whether or not she makes her confirmation. Personally, I couldn't give a rats what the neighbours think, never have. Re 'fitting in', there are four girls in her year and from junior infants on, she has been bullied or excluded by two of them with the third remaining neutral towards siding with the other two. She has just started to 'fit in'. I don't want this crap to kick it off again.

silverharp

I'm not sure on the logistics , being a small school they could reasonably say that your child can't be supervised so opting out might mean staying in the class reading a book. Start friendly and go from there .
I.d certainly be of the view that your kids see your response as being consistent and strong if need be. Take your child out of school the day before and the day after , and do something special, when you get back it will be ancient history

Brian Shanahan

galljga1 wrote: »

I foresee difficulty next year when she is due to be confirmed. We got over the whole communion situation with the promise of a big party, loads of presents, money etc. The same obviously applies to confirmation as I would rather her be the 'norm' rather than the only one in the class not being confirmed even though I think the whole thing is mumbo jumbo. She is in two minds about whether to leave religion class altogether or to just putt up and shut up.

Take her on a fun, and educational, day out instead (maybe to the natural history museum or a zoo). Trust me the other kids will probably be dead jealous.

lazygal

galljga1 wrote: »

She will decide whether or not she makes her confirmation. Personally, I couldn't give a rats what the neighbours think, never have. Re 'fitting in', there are four girls in her year and from junior infants on, she has been bullied or excluded by two of them with the third remaining neutral towards siding with the other two. She has just started to 'fit in'. I don't want this crap to kick it off again.

Well, I don't want to send the message to my children that if people don't want to be friends with them or bully them, the thing to do is follow their example and subscribe to a faith I'm not sure about. If there is an ongoing bullying issue, I'm not sure I'd want my child being friends with children like that and I'd be considering other options for their schooling rather than going through the motions of confirmation in the hope that just because she's doing the religious stuff they'll be her friends.
What happens when she's a teenager and wants to do something because she wants to fit in with her friends? Will she think back to this time in her life and come to the conclusion that the way to deal with bullies and make friends is to conform to what everyone else is doing or thinking?

galljga1

lazygal wrote: »

Well, I don't want to send the message to my children that if people don't want to be friends with them or bully them, the thing to do is follow their example and subscribe to a faith I'm not sure about. If there is an ongoing bullying issue, I'm not sure I'd want my child being friends with children like that and I'd be considering other options for their schooling rather than going through the motions of confirmation in the hope that just because she's doing the religious stuff they'll be her friends.
What happens when she's a teenager and wants to do something because she wants to fit in with her friends? Will she think back to this time in her life and come to the conclusion that the way to deal with bullies and make friends is to conform to what everyone else is doing or thinking?

You are fabulous. I really want to be as good a parent as you. You are not in her shoes nor mine. I was asking for advice, not a lecture on how you live your life.

lazygal

galljga1 wrote: »

You are fabulous. I really want to be as good a parent as you. You are not in her shoes nor mine. I was asking for advice, not a lecture on how you live your life.

What advice were you looking for? For someone to say, yeah, sounds good, let your daughter do the confirmation thing even you don't believe any of it, because then the kids who've been bullying her for years might be her friends?
You asked what the position is regarding opting out, and I and others said you are allowed to opt out of religious instruction, but the school doesn't have to faciliate this. You also mentioned that there has been ongoing bullying and that fitting in might help this. Well, I was great at fitting in in school in terms of religion, but that didn't matter a jot because I had glasses so there was something to mark me out. Kids will always find a reason to pick on someone. It's up to the school to sort it out. Up to now your child has gone along with this, and given the information it sounds like her doing religion hasn't made the others want to be her friend. So what will change if she doesn't do religion?

Shrap

galljga1 wrote: »

My daughter is in 5th class in a small catholic school. Due to the size of the school, 5th and 6th are in the same classroom so she is exposed to what 6th class are going through in preparation for confirmation. Every day (maybe week) the main gripe is religion. She is quite logical and finds christianity ridiculous.
...............
Alternatively, she just keeps her head down and just goes along with it which will cause her much internal strife but will not single her out.

Jesus (no pun intended), the poor girl. And poor you with such an unwelcome dilemma on your hands. I've been in a similar position to yourself with my two boys, in a very small local school with the 4th, 5th and 6th classes altogether. I'm an out and out atheist, so the boys were hardly going to be any other way.

My eldest was the first in the school to opt out of religion, but he was ok about going along with the church visits and joining in with the younger classes who did a play to accompany the ritual. My youngest was a different story - wouldn't hear of it and had no interest in going along with anything. Both enjoyed the fact that they got to do computer stuff or read a book during RE, and both benefited from the extra down-time, but they had some understanding teachers.

I'd have been VERY uncomfortable putting my kids to something I didn't believe in myself, for the sake of "fitting in". I don't think a) it would have helped them fit in, or b) it would have been a good lesson in standing up for their own beliefs.

Any advice would be welcome. Also, if the head gets bolshy and starts quoting the schools mission statement, catholic ethos etc, from a legal point of view, how are we covered if we request that my daughter be omitted from religious activity?

Yes, as far as I know you are covered, but it wouldn't hurt to go in and have a REASONABLE conversation with her about your feelings and your concern for your daughter. If she doesn't seem approachable, particularly in the light of what your daughter is experiencing (with her classmates, regardless of the religion issue), I'd be seriously questioning if this is the right school for her.

galljga1 wrote: »

Re 'fitting in', there are four girls in her year and from junior infants on, she has been bullied or excluded by two of them with the third remaining neutral towards siding with the other two. She has just started to 'fit in'. I don't want this crap to kick it off again.

Both of my boys felt somewhat like outsiders, but tbh, that was more to do with them not doing hurling (eldest couldn't deal with the competitiveness, youngest argued with own team and fought with everyone) or not being fully from the village, as it was with not being religious. The abstaining from religion class didn't affect them in any way, as far as I could see.

My youngest has some serious social and emotional problems anyway that far outweighed whether he wore the right clothes/played hurling/did religion and were much more about whether he was able for the give and take of the school yard (he wasn't)/a team player (he wasn't)/an easy target (he was). To my mind "this crap" that your daughter is going through may happen to her in any school, whether she is conforming to religion or not, if she is a sensitive child who isn't so robust as others in social terms (a nice trait btw. It will stand to her later on).

It comes down to how the school handles inclusion (regardless of religion) in all the pastimes during the day. If the teachers are not approachable about your concerns about your daughter's exclusion, then the school is the wrong place for her. I know of a few kids who were moved to my local primary because of this and because of the great reputation they have developed in coming down hard on bullying and exclusion. 5th class kids too. To my mind, religion is a much smaller part of the picture than how she feels about the school.