"Ireland’s priests will have almost disappeared in 20 years"

NIMAN

Deleted User wrote: »

Is the NI in your name for Northern Ireland? If so I can't believe you're not trolling.

Yes it is, and yes of course the past would have been different.
I meant from this exact moment on, I don't think my life would change at all if the church suddenly vanished. My own personal life, not the whole NI situation (which would immediately get a whole lot better if religion ceased to exist).

I am not trolling, honestly.

Bannasidhe

NIMAN wrote: »

Yes it is, and yes of course the past would have been different.
I meant from this exact moment on, I don't think my life would change at all if the church suddenly vanished. My own personal life, not the whole NI situation (which would immediately get a whole lot better if religion ceased to exist).

I am not trolling, honestly.

But if the past was different - you would be different.

We are in many regards products of our environment and get our cues from the society around us. Ireland would have been a very different place to grow up - ergo we would all be different to some extent.

Woogle

"Ireland’s priests will have almost disappeared in 20 years"

Quite likely, but surely this news is about 20 years old ?

Penn

NIMAN wrote: »

And I would be the first to agree with you 100%, I would love the church to hand over control of every single school in this country, but in the meantime, I have no option but to have my children educated in a so-called Catholic controlled school, whether I like it or not.

Sometimes the real world comes before your wishes, thats life.

But don't you see how circular that is?

Church controls most of the schools
People feel like they have no option but to go along with it
Children baptised and put down as Catholic on Census
Church uses these figures to say there are X number of Catholics in that area
Church controls most of the schools
People feel like they have no option but to go along with it
Children baptised and put down as Catholic on Census
Church uses these figures to say there are X number of Catholics in that area
Church controls most of the schools
etc etc

Only by people breaking out of that cycle will anything change. You'd love the church to hand over control of every single school in this country, yet you're helping them do the complete opposite.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

Yes it is, and yes of course the past would have been different.
I meant from this exact moment on, I don't think my life would change at all if the church suddenly vanished. My own personal life, not the whole NI situation (which would immediately get a whole lot better if religion ceased to exist).

I am not trolling, honestly.

Ah ok, we're to ignore the last few hundred years and their effects. :pac: Fair enough. There's plenty else to be said but others will cover that.

kylith

NIMAN wrote: »

When I said about how I wondered if my life would be any different, Church or no Church, I did not mean this actual nation, but our individual lives.

Well, my mother wouldn't have been beaten for being left handed, so there's that. With about 90 minutes a week freed up in schools, since they would't be teaching the kids prayers by rote, the rates of numeracy and literacy would probably go up. Kids wouldn't lose literally weeks of schooling to prepare for sacraments either.

As for being a Catholic, of course I am not really, probably most agnostic. But I still 'go along with it' for an easy life. I got married in a church because both sets of parents would have been religious. We could have got a civil wedding but it honestly would not have been worth the hassle.

And do you who think I should abandon Catholicism officially have children? Because if we were to raise your children as being of no faith then you would struggle big time to get them educated, especially where I live. There are no non-religious affiliated schools within 1hrs drive. Its all well and good making a stand against religion, but sometimes real world practicalities come first. When my children get to a reasonable age and should they want to adandon 'their faith' then they won't find any resistance from me.

Yes, so we should all just raise our children as catholics because pretending to be something that you're not for the sake of an easy life is the best way to change the status quo :rolleyes:

Until non-Catholic parents start demanding that that their children aren't taught religion in schools, until they start demanding secular schools, until people start telling their parents "You had your wedding, now I'm having mine and I'm doing it my way. If you want a church do, renew your own wedding vows", until then nothing will change.

Sure it was probably more hassle than it was worth for Rosa Parks to sit up the front of the bus, and it was probably more hassle than it was worth for Sylvia Pankhurst to campaign for women to have the vote. But they did it, they put up with the hassle, they were the vanguard and the world changed and became better.

hfallada

In fairness in most suburbs of Dublin the churches could be merged as they are practically side by side in some areas. There is too many churches in the city center of the amount of catholics there now days

kylith

NIMAN wrote: »

1) Do you have children?

Are only people who have children allowed to have an opinion on the matter? Do those of us who have yet to reproduce, but who will in future, not get to have a say?

NIMAN wrote: »

2) Do you think I should stand by my convictions and not send my children to a Catholic primary school? In my case I have no other option, so they would be uneducated. That would do more damage to them than being 'Catholic' imho.

Yes, I think everyone should have the courage of their convictions. Did you never consider telling the school "We're not Christians. Please give my children some work/drawing to do while you're conducting religious instruction with the other children"?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Well, my mother wouldn't have been beaten for being left handed, so there's that. With about 90 minutes a week freed up in schools, since they would't be teaching the kids prayers by rote, the rates of numeracy and literacy would probably go up. Kids wouldn't lose literally weeks of schooling to prepare for sacraments either.


Yes, so we should all just raise our children as catholics because pretending to be something that you're not for the sake of an easy life is the best way to change the status quo :rolleyes:

Until non-Catholic parents start demanding that that their children aren't taught religion in schools, until they start demanding secular schools, until people start telling their parents "You had your wedding, now I'm having mine and I'm doing it my way. If you want a church do, renew your own wedding vows", until then nothing will change.

Sure it was probably more hassle than it was worth for Rosa Parks to sit up the front of the bus, and it was probably more hassle than it was worth for Sylvia Pankhurst to campaign for women to have the vote. But they did it, they put up with the hassle, they were the vanguard and the world changed and became better.

Personally it would have been far less hassle for me to continue to live in the UK then to return to Ireland in the early 90s as an out Lesbian with an unbaptised son.

Thing is, I'm Irish and I wanted my son to be Irish too. I wanted him to go blacka picking in September, to have long vowel sounds and working knowledge of the many uses of the word 'langer', to play find the warm spot in the sea off West Cork, to roar for Munster at Thomond Park, to participate in the ritual of 'doing Pana' like his mother, grandparents and great grandparents before him, to stand proud and say 'I'm from Cork like', to grow up on the island of his ancestors surrounded by a mad extended family - not in exile in a foreign land cut off from his roots where 'family' consists of people you see once a year by getting on a plane.
To do all of those things that are great about being Irish.

I have never considered Catholicism and Irish identity to be the same thing and I will defy anyone who says it is to my dying day - regardless of the hassle. I will gladly put up with the hassle for my child and my child's children.

NIMAN

That's

kylith wrote: »

Are only people who have children allowed to have an opinion on the matter? Do those of us who have yet to reproduce, but who will in future, not get to have a say?

Yes, I think everyone should have the courage of their convictions. Did you never consider telling the school "We're not Christians. Please give my children some work/drawing to do while you're conducting religious instruction with the other children"?

Of course those with no children are entitled to their opinion, but you don't face some of the problems that parents in Ireland do. if you had children it might alter your opinions and decisions. I was asking to see how those with children have got their children educated if they don't agree with the whole Catholic thing.

and as for asking the school to let my children do something else, well the big problem is that my children not even be at school to have that decision to ,make. I am fairly sure that if my kids were non-Catholic they would not be admitted to the local school. That's real life that I live in, unfortunately.

Sarky

You didn't try though, did you? You'll never know.

NIMAN

Let's just say I have a good idea.

kylith

NIMAN wrote: »

and as for asking the school to let my children do something else, well the big problem is that my children not even be at school to have that decision to ,make.

Sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm having difficulty working out what you're saying.

I am fairly sure that if my kids were non-Catholic they would not be admitted to the local school. That's real life that I live in, unfortunately.

So your Local Authority has no provision for non-Catholic kids? What do the Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, et al do?

lazygal

NIMAN wrote: »

I am fairly sure that if my kids were non-Catholic they would not be admitted to the local school. That's real life that I live in, unfortunately.

Fairly sure? Did you check? Or did you just decide it was easier to indoctrinate them just in case, for an easy life?

Kidchameleon

lazygal wrote: »

It's because people like you go along with things like catholic weddings, christenings and chanting for an easy life that people like me and others are having to negotiate our way through having our children indoctrinated in schools we pay for, against our wishes.

Thats a tad hypocritical dont you think?

Bannasidhe

NIMAN wrote: »

That's


Of course those with no children are entitled to their opinion, but you don't face some of the problems that parents in Ireland do. if you had children it might alter your opinions and decisions. I was asking to see how those with children have got their children educated if they don't agree with the whole Catholic thing.

and as for asking the school to let my children do something else, well the big problem is that my children not even be at school to have that decision to ,make. I am fairly sure that if my kids were non-Catholic they would not be admitted to the local school. That's real life that I live in, unfortunately.

As Sarky said you didn't try so you don't really know. You posited that 5 years down the line you would have problems so decided to go with the flow and do what 'everyone' else does. Imagine if you and 'everyone' else hadn't taken the easy way - do you really think government wouldn't have had to act to ensure a load of non-Catholic children got school places?

How do you think COI, Presbyterian, Methodist, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, JW, Mormon, Hindu etc etc children managed to get an education if one absolutely must be a Catholic in order to ensure a place in a school?

I see our Indian neighbour's son trotting off to the local National School every morning with our Polish neighbour's son. Neither are Catholic (no- not all Poles are Catholic ).

You are kicking the can down the road and leaving it for your children or their children to sort it out because you don't want the hassle.

Now that is Irish.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thats a tad hypocritical dont you think?

Failing to see how.

Explain?

lazygal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thats a tad hypocritical dont you think?

Why?

robindch

NIMAN wrote: »

Let's just say I have a good idea.

I didn't realize that I was the first person to request a religion-free education for my kid in her Montessori school in South Dublin, but once I'd asked, they seemed mostly pretty ok with it.

That said, one evening, my kid came home doing the hands-together, eyes facing upwards but closed thing, humming quietly, so the following morning, I trotted, ever-so politely (danger sign) into the head mistress's office to ask where my kid might have picked up something like that. She said she'd look into it and get back to me, but not before delivering the following gem:

A Montessori Headmistress wrote:

Well, we do cater for all religions. The local parish priest is a lovely guy. Gives the kids sweets and everything. And we had an imam in here recently too. But there's nobody like you here. Sorry, I mean nobody with opinions like yours in the school.

Nobody in that part of South Dublin is atheist or agnostic, where church attendance is beneath 10%?

Really?

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

Oh no, you said it. I have the feeling something terrible is about to happen.

As long as no one is stupid enough to say 6%, 6%, 6% we should be ok.


Oh bugger...

MrP

Brian Shanahan

68Murph68 wrote: »

So in 1990 there were 525 students studying for the priesthood in Ireland while in 2013 there are 70. Normally takes 6 year to become a priest so it basically means that the situation has gone from 88 priests a year to 12 priests a year in the space of 20 years.

Part of the reason for this decline is the situation recounted to me by a somewhat distant relative (2nd cousin or so to my mother). In about 1992 her son, who was studying to be a priest in Maynooth, was carted off to Texas with the rest of his class and forced back a number of years, because two of the students, neither of them my relative, were caught in bed with each other. The two "offenders" were expelled. Needless to say most of the seminarians soon quit their studies to work in areas less fascistic.

This kind of authoritarian behaviour is rife in the church. However since the early '90's people have been doing something about an attitude they've been long sick of, and walking away. Long may it continue.

Brian Shanahan

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It was on the news last night that the only 'developed' country that spends more time on religion in school than Ireland is Israel. You know - Israel: a country that not only has a State religion but was created for people of a specific religion.

And discriminates against adherants of other religions in a way reminiscent of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1938. Do we want to be just barely better than a racist state?

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And discriminates against adherants of other religions in a way reminiscent of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1938. Do we want to be just barely better than a racist state?

According to some I have seen on things like Prime Time we should be number 1 for indoctrination. It's those pesky PC huggy subjects getting in the way. We should return to the 3 R's - Religion, Religion and Reading Religion.

jimd2

Galvasean wrote: »

You keep asking this question, but you never stick around to actually engage with an answer

For your information Galvasean I made a point and I dont see any rules where I have to "stick around". In the past I have debated issues at naseum on this forum but I dont have the time at the moment. I have a busy job, family committments, sporting activities and a social life. At this time of the year and family responsibilities "sticking around" repeating myself is not top of my priorities. I made my point quite clearly and, tbh, no one really answered the basic question as to why some people on here, who dont believe in the church or God, are so obsessed about it.

Also your Wonka picture saying "Have you tried not making decisions for others and minding your own business". I take it that that is adressed at me. When have I made decisions etc for others?

Perhaps, instead of scouring the internet looking for pictures to make a point against people you could get out more in the real world and not continue to add to your 32,000 plus posts.

PopePalpatine

jimd2 wrote: »

I made my point quite clearly and, tbh, no one really answered the basic question as to why some people on here, who dont believe in the church or God, are so obsessed about it.

Also your Wonka picture saying "Have you tried not making decisions for others and minding your own business". I take it that that is adressed at me. When have I made decisions etc for others?

Well, the Catholic Church likes to do that all the time, even for non-Catholics! :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

jimd2, I answered your question. Did you read it? Will you respond? If you do not wish to engage with other posters, why post at all?

jimd2

ninja900 wrote: »

A little...? Some of the things I've heard 'harmless little old ladies' come out with...

Anyway.. the new 'mission to Ireland' priests will be a test of their faith :pac:




Because it is obsessed with us. It blames us for everything, including paedophilia (the irony)



More irony, why would a theist hang around an atheist forum just to be offended?



I would LOVE to have nothing to do with the catholic church - yet it insists on having something to do with me. It enrolled me as a baby and won't let me officially leave. It won't give up control of 94% of primary schools, making it almost impossible to obtain non-brainwashed education for my kids. It treats women as second class citizens and wants the law to do so as well.

First of all the Catholic Church does NOT blame atheists for Paedophilia...maybe you have some obscure quotes from somewhere but I havent ONCE heard from a priest etc. and it is not something that has been in the mainstream media.

This statement about wanting to leave and not being allowed to do so is garbage in my opinion also, you have left and if I wanted to leave I would just do so. You cannot unbaptise yourself just like you cannot take away the fact that you, maybe, played football for a particular club. The church is not forcing you to come back ever again.

Regarding the primary schools, I have said on this forum before that I feel that most primary schools should be non denomonational and Diarmuid Martin has actually moved in that direction. That said, I think that your use of the word brainwash is a bit ott and I am sure that you are well able to counteract any classes with you own beliefs or non beliefs.

jimd2

ninja900 wrote: »

jimd2, I answered your question. Did you read it? Will you respond? If you do not wish to engage with other posters, why post at all?

The only reason I answered Galvasean is that it was a personal atack at me. I will post here but I am not getting into the tooing and froing and repeating the same arguments that happened before.

I am also of the opinion that, if the OP wanted to debate the demise of priests properly then he/se would have posted on the Chrisitanity forum but it smacked to me of another opportunity to have a swipe at the church and I do not like that arrogant obsessive attitude.

Sarky

<snigger>

robindch

jimd2 wrote: »

[...] no one really answered the basic question as to why some people on here, who dont believe in the church or God, are so obsessed about it. [...]

Well, in this thread alone, eight posters, including two moderators, wrote the following eight posts which were thanked a total of seventy-seven times. These answer your basic question in a plain straightforward manner:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85031740&postcount=32
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85032359&postcount=33
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85033202&postcount=37
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85035502&postcount=38
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85036081&postcount=39
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85036679&postcount=40
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85037474&postcount=42
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85037617&postcount=43

jimd2 wrote: »

[...] I dont see any rules where I have to "stick around" [...]

No, there aren't.

But do be aware that you're representing what I must assume is your religion. So, if you refuse to stick around and debate (as you appear to suggest you're about to do) after receiving a series of answers to your questions, then people are well-justified in concluding that -- like so many previous religious posters here -- you find the answers frightening and that you have no reply to them.

Hotblack Desiato

jimd2, you know well (or should know well, as you are encouraging us to post there) that for most if not all A&A regulars, if we posted on the Christianity forum what we really think, we'd violate the charter there.

Dani Pacheco

Read the title, thought "good", lol'd and left.

Hotblack Desiato

Thank you for replying.

jimd2 wrote: »

First of all the Catholic Church does NOT blame atheists for Paedophilia...maybe you have some obscure quotes from somewhere but I havent ONCE heard from a priest etc. and it is not something that has been in the mainstream media.

It wasn't a 'priest etc.' but Pope Benedict I had in mind. I am sorry but I was apparently mistaken. Pope Benedict blamed paedophilia on Vatican II hippy priests:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

Pope Benedict's pastoral letter to the catholics of Ireland wrote:

The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.

Ugh I feel dirty for clicking on a vatican.va link, but I took one for the team here


What he blamed atheists for was no less than the Holocaust.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/16/popes-visit-benedict-arrives-uk

Pope Benedict's speech at Holyrood wrote:

In a speech at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the pope also praised Britain for its role in fighting Nazi Germany and forging the postwar consensus, but warned again of the dangers of what he termed "aggressive secularism".

The pope said that even in his own lifetime, "Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live".

Driving home a point that is expected to be central to his four-day visit, Benedict went on: "As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny'."

Overlooking of course that most leading Nazis were Catholics.

This statement about wanting to leave and not being allowed to do so is garbage in my opinion also, you have left and if I wanted to leave I would just do so. You cannot unbaptise yourself just like you cannot take away the fact that you, maybe, played football for a particular club. The church is not forcing you to come back ever again.

They are not forcing me to ever come back again, thankfully, but they used to allow a procedure of defection. Why do they not do so any more? It doesn't really bother me all that much (filling in the census honestly is much more important) but if it was still there I'd do it.

Regarding the primary schools, I have said on this forum before that I feel that most primary schools should be non denomonational and Diarmuid Martin has actually moved in that direction.

He has said that the rcc might, at some time, consider moving in that direction.
I am not aware of a single school they have given up?
Forgive me for being a doubting Thomas. I fully expect his church to delay and obstruct change for many decades to come. What matters is what happens on the ground not the high-fallutin' statements.

That said, I think that your use of the word brainwash is a bit ott and I am sure that you are well able to counteract any classes with you own beliefs or non beliefs.

Would you be happy with, for example, state sponsored compulsory Islam indoctrination for your child? Sure what's the harm, you'd be well able to counteract it at home and it's not like there's anything more useful like science or languages they could be spending their limited, tax-funded school hours doing instead.

Kidchameleon

lazygal wrote: »

Why?

Well your criticizing NIMAN for "going along with it" for an easy life yet you say you may have to bring your kids to a Catholic school.

lazygal wrote: »

It's because people like you go along with things like catholic weddings, christenings and chanting for an easy life that people like me and others are having to negotiate our way through having our children indoctrinated in schools we pay for, against our wishes.

lazygal wrote: »

I do have children. I may have to send them to a local catholic school.

lazygal wrote: »

We chose to live in an area where we have access to several schools. We are guaranteed a place in a Catholic school as we live close by, and have been assured of a place in the ET school (but we made sure we had backup). Schooling was a top priority for us when we decided to have children, so we located accordingly.

Looks to me from that post that you have at least considered bringing your child to the catholic school. This is where you are being a hypocrite.

Finally you go a contradict all of your "convictions" here:

lazygal wrote: »

If I had no option I would homeschool or seek out a private school.

lazygal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well your criticizing NIMAN for "going along with it" for an easy life yet you say you may have to bring your kids to a Catholic school.
Looks to me from that post that you have at least considered bringing your child to the catholic school. This is where you are being a hypocrite.

Finally you go a contradict all of your "convictions" here:

I see no hypocrisy. We haven't baptised our child(ren). And we won't, not just to get them into school. The local Catholic school has distance from the school as its top criteria for enrolment, and as we live close by we're pretty much assured of a place. Our first choice is an ET - and thankfully we have secured a place here, but who knows what will happen in the future?

We would not, ever, baptise our child(ren) to get them into a school or for the sake of an easy life. We would rather homeschool or go private should no PUBLIC place be available than baptise for an easy life.

But if you see hypocrisy there, I'm not sure what I can do about that.

Bannasidhe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well your criticizing NIMAN for "going along with it" for an easy life yet you say you may have to bring your kids to a Catholic school.




Looks to me from that post that you have at least considered bringing your child to the catholic school. This is where you are being a hypocrite.

Finally you go a contradict all of your "convictions" here:

Perhaps it would be if it were a real 'Catholic' school - you know funded by the Catholic Church rather than a local State Funded National School which the powers that be decided many many years ago to hand over to the RCC to manage.

I had to send my son to a 'Catholic' primary school because there were no other schools in the area, when I moved he again had to go to a 'Catholic' school even though the COI school was better, closer and it was where all his friends were- strangely enough that was full of Catholics so we couldn't get him in.

Perhaps I should have had him baptised COI....actually, that wouldn't have worked as he ended up going to the 'Catholic' school with an awful lot of Protestants who couldn't get into the 'Protestant' school due to it being full of Catholics.

For secondary school he went to what had been a 'Protestant' school but re-classified as 'Multi-denominational' to reflect the fact that the majority of it's pupils were 'Catholics' sent there by their parents who did not want their children to have a 'Catholic' education - he met up with his mates from that COI school I mentioned there.

Zombrex

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Well it turns out the Catholic Church has discovered the lost art of basic mathematics.

In this article a priest points out the interesting fact that: an institution consisting of backward old men pretending to be celibate is attracting new young people about as well as the EDL is in attracting new Muslim members.

Not enough Irish people are joining the priesthood to replace those priests retiring/serving prison time/being hidden away from authorities.

Once a lifetime of hiding peodfiles and/or abusing children without consequence was apparently quite appealing to the irish youth (the RCC presumes).
But without new people joining - in 20 years there won't be enough priests to perform all the priesting stuff we so desperately need... it's gonna be tough, but i think i might be able to get through these dark days.

Please God let me live to see the day the Catholic Church collapses due to no priests.

Zombrex

Out of curiousity does anyone know if there is an easy to access database of priests?

It would be really interesting to do a few charts detailing not only the death rate of priests compared to new priests, but also the ages. The way human population works it isn't going to be a slow and steady decline. I'm guessing that you will see a very very rapid decline in priests over a space of about 10 years as all the priests of a certain age die close together.

I would say busing priests in from the third world will stem the tide for a bit. Which will cause an interesting clash between religious conservatism and racism.

Kidchameleon

lazygal wrote: »

I see no hypocrisy. We haven't baptised our child(ren). And we won't, not just to get them into school. The local Catholic school has distance from the school as its top criteria for enrolment, and as we live close by we're pretty much assured of a place. Our first choice is an ET - and thankfully we have secured a place here, but who knows what will happen in the future?

We would not, ever, baptise our child(ren) to get them into a school or for the sake of an easy life. We would rather homeschool or go private should no PUBLIC place be available than baptise for an easy life.

But if you see hypocrisy there, I'm not sure what I can do about that.

So you would send them to a Catholic school if there was no other school available once they didn't need to be baptized?

kylith

I know that diocese have lists of what priests are in which parish, and their phone numbers. I don't know if there's any database of how many come and go though.

kylith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So you would send them to a Catholic school if there was no other school available once they didn't need to be baptized?

Would you send your child to a protestant school if it were no other school available?

lazygal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

So you would send them to a Catholic school if there was no other school available once they didn't need to be baptized?

Yes, I would. Is that hypocritical?

Kidchameleon

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, I would. Is that hypocritical?

IMHO, a little bit yes.

Kidchameleon

kylith wrote: »

Would you send your child to a protestant school if it were no other school available?

I would.

But I wouldn't blame others who partake in protestant rituals for it. If I felt so strongly about the situation I would stand up for my convictions and move.

kylith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I would.

But I wouldn't blame others who partake in protestant rituals for it. If I felt so strongly about the situation I would stand up for my convictions and move.

You wouldn't criticise someone who pretended to be a protestant for no reason other than to get their child into school?

If you couldn't afford to move what would you do? Where would you move too? Where's the closest non-catholic school? How will that effect your ability to get to and from work? It's not as simple as saying 'just move'. However it is as simple as saying 'no state funded schools should endow any particular religion, nor have an ethos which would discriminate against students or teachers'.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If I felt so strongly about the situation I would stand up for my convictions and move.

And if moving wasn't an option? Would you be prepared to sacrifice your political opinions for your kid's education?

Delirium

I don't see how lazygal is being hypocritical. She has a problem with parents putting their kids through the sacraments just to get them into a school. She has said that won't baptise her kid(s) to get them into a school.

That's perfectly consistent tbh.

Kidchameleon

kylith wrote: »

You wouldn't criticise someone who pretended to be a protestant for no reason other than to get their child into school?

Were not talking about anyone pretending to be of any religion. NIMAN is not pretending to be a Catholic, in fact NIMAN has stated as to being agonostic. lazygal is not pretending to be Catholic, she is in fact non religious / atheist i beleive.

kylith wrote: »

If you couldn't afford to move what would you do? Where would you move too? Where's the closest non-catholic school? How will that effect your ability to get to and from work? It's not as simple as saying 'just move'. However it is as simple as saying 'no state funded schools should endow any particular religion, nor have an ethos which would discriminate against students or teachers'.

None of those things matter. If your going to have a pop at someone for taking the "easy" way out, then you better be prepared to take the hard way out, or else be a hypocrite.

Kidchameleon

koth wrote: »

I don't see how lazygal is being hypocritical. She has a problem with parents putting their kids through the sacraments just to get them into a school. She has said that won't baptise her kid(s) to get them into a school.

That's perfectly consistent tbh.

She would still put them into a Catholic school and risk indoctrination.

Delirium

Kidchameleon wrote: »

She would still put them into a Catholic school and risk indoctrination.

I haven't seen her mention indoctrination anywhere on the thread. How can see be hypocritical for something she hasn't said?