Daughter forced to believe in God

JuliusCaesar

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Every tom dick and harry in the country knows that if you want to get your kid into an Irish primary school (or at least most primary schools) you need a baptismal cert to be confident of a place.

My parents were atheists, I am an atheist (never baptised), my child is an atheist (never baptised) and yet strangely both I and my child survived an Irish education. She attended a Roman Catholic school in a high-demand area of Dublin, she sat in on all the First Communion preparation and even went along to the church with the rest of her class - I'd discussed it with the teacher and herself. She didn't take part as she wasn't RC. There was another non-RC child in the class which helped the discussion of what other people believe in - Catholics, Muslims, Bahai, Ancient Romans etc etc.

So no, you don't need a baptismal certificate to get into a RC national school. :rolleyes:

vibe666

lynski wrote: »

Or woman.

BonsaiKitten

Gerry T wrote: »

If you look at the primary school curriculum http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Curriculum/Intro_Eng.pdf you won't find the word religion mentioned once and the only mention of the word catholic is mentioned twice and that's in reference to a catholic primary school association. So if the primary school could stick with the curriculum set out by the NCCA.

Wrong. If you look at the allowance of time per subject religion is listed.
There's no curriculum for religion as it wouldn't be possible to write a curriculum covering every different belief, so the RCC, CoI, ET etc schools all have their own. The primary school is sticking with the stated curriculum.

FullblownRose

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

There was another non-RC child in the class which helped the discussion of what other people believe in - Catholics, Muslims, Bahai, Ancient Romans etc etc.

So no, you don't need a baptismal certificate to get into a RC national school. :rolleyes:

I've been getting the impression that there isn't *any* discussion of other beliefs. At least not in schools like the one the O.P's daughter attends.
If there is, that's great.

shruikan2553

ardle1 wrote: »

How in Gods name does someone have to be forced to believe in God?
Surely in this day and age and the obviousness that we certainly are 'from/created' by a greater being(God), nobody should be forced to believe!?

So what did the young lady believe? eh that we actually where created from a grain of dust, big bang theory etc etc... ha ha ha don't make me laugh!

Which god(s)?

GreeBo

lazygal wrote: »

But Santa doesn't exist. We know Santa doesn't exist. How parents deal with that is not a matter for the school, its a matter for the parents, as my parents were told when a non catholic child told us there was no Santa. We plan on doing Santa, in a pretty low key way, and if our children were told Santa doesn't exist we'd deal with that ourselves. How is telling children God doesn't exist different from telling them Santa doesn't exist? Or there's no Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy? And if you tell the school and the school says 'while the child is in school he or she is not allowed to say there is no God' what should a parent do then?

Sorry but how do we "know" Santa doesnt exist but we dont "know" God exists?
Its not different at all, that was my point. In a class of 7 year olds you cant allow one child to effectively teach the other children their beliefs, do you not see how thats exactly the thing you have a problem with?

Cabaal wrote: »

"Special needs"?

You seriously might want to choose your words much more wisely, this is special needs as far as the Dept Of Education is concerned - http://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Special-Education/

A none belief in a supernatural invisible being isn't a "special need" or any form of disability, its a basic human right to believe in what you want to...or not as the case may be.

You might want to show some respect to the op and his daughter,



I went to school with somebody who didn't believe in Santa from a very young age....their parents were very very poor so they took the decision to tell them,

They never went around telling other students in a vindictive way....likely the same as the OP's 7 year old didn't do so either.

Did the school threaten them...no of course not, they'd be idiots if they had.
:rolleyes:

Special
pertaining or peculiar to a particular person, thing, instance, etc.; distinctive; unique:

Need
a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation:


The child has a need that, in the context of a Catholic school, is special. They require no relgious teaching, in fact they demand it. In a Catholic school thats a need that is different than all the other children. You can try to build a strawman argument and move the goalposts on my point, but the point still stands. The teacher is not a mind reader. How do they know the difference between the child acting up and the childs "religious beliefs", not that a 7 year old is in any way capable of having religious beliefs of their own.

There is no disrespect, bar that which you yourself have invented and attributed to attempt to win a point.

vibe666 wrote: »

no, i think it is entirely irrelevant when a teacher and principle in charge of the health and well-being of a child decide that the best course of action when a child questions belief in god is to immediately threaten them for not believing and in doing so breach their Irish constitutional and EU human rights.


i think if a primary school teacher in a catholic school can't handle a 7 year old kid questioning the existence of their imaginary friend without losing the plot and threatening them with expulsion, then *maybe* they're in the wrong job.

his child doesn't have any special needs, what she has are the same constitutional and human rights under Irish and EU law that every other child in the country has a right to.

if YOUR child didn't believe in santa and was threatened with expulsion by their school for that lack of belief in a clear breach of their rights, would you be happy about it and think it was a reasonable response against a 7 year old child?

I have already stated that I think it was handled badly by the principle at least.
Why do you refuse to accept that the parent caused this issue by not mentioning something to the school about their special requirements for their child?

Cabaal wrote: »

I think you'll find there is alot you can do about it,

Just because you enroll and child into a catholic ethos school does not mean that the school can force the religion on your child.

Indeed it doesnt, but it might be nice for them to know that you dont want your child to have religion taught to them.

bajer101 wrote: »

OP here again. Rather than try to respond individually to a lot of posts where people don't seem to have read the thread, I'll just do a quick recap and clarify a few points.

I did not have a conversation with the school about not wanting my daughter to learn Religion, because the situation only arose after she announced that she didn't believe in God. Prior to this, I actually wasn't too bothered about her doing Religion classes or making her Communion. While I am an atheist I have never had in-depth discussions with her about God or the big bang expansion, as these concepts are too difficult for a child to understand. I have always told her that she can make up her own mind about this. I have told her that I don't believe in God, but that plenty of other people do, including her mother and other members of our family. Regarding having her baptised - that is irrelevant, but for the record, it was her mother who wanted that done, but I now have sole custody. I may have ended up getting her baptised anyway, as it seems to be a prerequisite to gain admittance to over 90% of schools in the country.

The problem arose when she announced in class that she did not believe in God, and the big problem for both me and her was with how the school seemed to handle this. I started this thread looking for advice on how to proceed. Thanks to the advice I have received, I now know that I am perfectly entitled to have her opt of Religion and this is what I am pursuing. I have written to the Principal and explained the situation and also explained the situation to my daughter.

Why did you not talk to the school before all of this happened?
Do you not think it was going to come up at some stage, in a catholic school where there is religion taught?

Your last sentence should have been the first thing you did and none of this would have happened, you are the cause of this issue.

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't give children much credit do you?
In this case the OP's child is developed enough to know right from wrong and what they believe in,

The OP's child knows they don't believe in a magical invisible being and they know that claiming they do believe in the magical invisible being is a lie.

Lets look at a 7 year olds development shall we?



Seems the OP's child is well capable of logical thought, that's evident.

As the child gets older they may decide to believe in any number of the gods that exist and thats their choice, but as it stands right now they are entitled to be respect in their non belief.

Please.

Comprehending 7-3 = 4 +3 is not exactly the same as having the ability to understand, comprehend, deal with the implications and decide on the existence of a deity or not.
Why dont we let them vote if they are so logical and developed?

GreeBo

Gerry T wrote: »

For me I'm keen to know why those that feel catholic schools should teach catholic RE and remain state funded. For me its simple, if you take state funding you have to educate all denominations and the only real way to do this is drop RE as part of the course. If you disagree why do you feel differently ?

Interesting but not part of the argument.

You may as well ask why a boys soccer club wouldnt want a girl to join, even if there are no girls soccer clubs available nearby.

Arguing that there should be one isnt the point, there isnt.

RustyNut

GreeBo wrote: »

Interesting but not part of the argument.

You may as well ask why a boys soccer club wouldnt want a girl to join, even if there are no girls soccer clubs available nearby.

Arguing that there should be one isnt the point, there isnt.

Its not a legal requirement for girls to play soccer.

Gumbi

GreeBo wrote: »

Please.

Comprehending 7-3 = 4 +3 is not exactly the same as having the ability to understand, comprehend, deal with the implications and decide on the existence of a deity or not.
Why dont we let them vote if they are so logical and developed?

To be fair, it goes the same for the other side of the coin. If this is the case we shouldn't be branding these children as Catholics or Protestants or Muslims etc.

GreeBo

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm still reluctant to describe her as an Atheist. But yes, I did have a conversation with her about making her Communion after this situation arose. (Again, I find myself having to repeat myself). I explained what making your Communion meant (transubstantiation and all that), and she said that it was was stupid.



Yeah well, save your sympathy - she'll be fine. We'll celebrate in our own way and she has a wonderfully supportive family who will give her a big day out.

It could be worse. She could be in a North Korean school where 100% of the children celebrate ridiculous holidays in honour of their leader. Would you feel sorry for a child who decided not to take part? Don't bother replying. I've become used to people asking me questions in this thread, but when I reply and counter, there is no answer.

You explained transubstantiation to a 7 year old and expected what exactly?

Also, in one sentence you state that it would be terrible to be a child in North Korea to have to celebrate made up occasions and yet you and your child are going to celebrate other peoples communions?
Why, because she wouldnt be able to understand/deal with others having a celebration? Oh thats right, she is 7. Of course she wouldnt!
Yet you think a discussion on transubstantiation will get you somewhere meaningful?

Kids are all taught about it at that age, it's kind of the point of the communion

Yes, it is nonsense, but when it's a Big Deal in the school whether she's going to go along with it or not, it makes sense to explain what it's actually about

GreeBo

Gumbi wrote: »

To be fair, it goes the same for the other side of the coin. If this is the case we shouldn't be branding these children as Catholics or Protestants or Muslims etc.

Agreed.
The parents "brand" them with their own choices, whether they want to or not, thats the nature of the relationship between parents and children.

GreeBo

RustyNut wrote: »

Its not a legal requirement for girls to play soccer.

Indeed it isn't.

But the point still stands, if the options are limited you have to deal with it.
The way you deal with it is by talking to the school and not expecting your 7 year old to have the frank open discussion with the school that is required.

srsly78

ardle1 wrote: »

So what did the young lady believe? eh that we actually where created from a grain of dust, big bang theory etc etc... ha ha ha don't make me laugh!

The Catholic church and the book of genesis both concur with the big bang theory :pac:

GreeBo

bluewolf wrote: »

Kids are all taught about it at that age, it's kind of the point of the communion

Yes, it is nonsense, but when it's a Big Deal in the school whether she's going to go along with it or not, it makes sense to explain what it's actually about

In your opinion its nonsense altogether.
In my opinion trying to explain it to children is nonsense.

You cant expect a child to have any ability to understand a belief like that and make a conscious decision, they are always going to follow the parents choice.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

In your opinion its nonsense altogether.
In my opinion trying to explain it to children is nonsense.

You cant expect a child to have any ability to understand a belief like that and make a conscious decision, they are always going to follow the parents choice.

I said I agreed with you that explaining it to children is nonsense. And so the whole thing about making children commit to it at 7 is also nonsense.
But there's no point having a go at someone explaining to their child what exactly is involved in a process that the school want other 7 year olds to do

GreeBo

Cabaal wrote: »

Yeah silly child saying things that don't go in-line with the catholic ethos....I mean how dare they!.
:rolleyes:

I suppose next you'll be suggesting that a child with divorced parents shouldn't say it in class or a child with gay parents shouldn't ever mention it in school.

After all, it might give impressionable young 7 year olds the wrong idea and we don't want that.



Even more amazing that children at the age of 5 say they believe in a god and Jesus, wouldn't be anything to do with their parents blindingly telling them they exist?
:rolleyes:

Its a Catholic school!
Of course they are going to expect the Catholic ethos.
There should be other options, but there arent.

The catholic parents of all the other kids dont expect or want their beliefs being challenged by others (children or teachers) hence they sent them to a Catholic school.

You dont think atheist children get that from their parents?

You really think its logical that a 7 year old can logically deduce that its nonsense to belief in a single deity but that they can believe in evolution and that "we are advanced monkeys"?
Children cant comprehend either of these things, they are children.

GreeBo

bluewolf wrote: »

I said I agreed with you that explaining it to children is nonsense. And so the whole thing about making children commit to it at 7 is also nonsense.
But there's no point having a go at someone explaining to their child what exactly is involved in a process that the school want other 7 year olds to do

Fair enough on your first point but I disagree with the second.

The OP is explaining transubstantiation to a child so they can make a choice on it, but you might as well ask the child do they believe in the atom.
Part of the religion is that children are baptised, christened, communion, confirmation, etc.
You/We may disagree but thats the religion, its similar in others (Judaism for example)

bajer101

I met the Principal this morning and it went well. My daughter will not have to partake in any Religious Education. When the rest of the class are doing RE, she can do other school work. The only slight problem would be with school masses. If I don't want her to attend those, I would have to have her collected. This isn't really an issue as I don't mind her attending the odd mass as long as she is not being told that she has to believe it all.

I'll chat with my daughter this evening and explain all this and about the other work she is to do during Religion.

RustyNut

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed it isn't.

But the point still stands, if the options are limited you have to deal with it.
The way you deal with it is by talking to the school and not expecting your 7 year old to have the frank open discussion with the school that is required.

What about the child's right to express their beliefs in a frank and open way without being bullied?

vibe666

ardle1 wrote: »

How in Gods name does someone have to be forced to believe in God?
Surely in this day and age and the obviousness that we certainly are 'from/created' by a greater being(God), nobody should be forced to believe!?

So what did the young lady believe? eh that we actually where created from a grain of dust, big bang theory etc etc... ha ha ha don't make me laugh!

strange that you say this, yet the more people understand about the universe, the less likely they are to believe in god(s) of any kind, to the point where only a tiny percentage of the most intelligent scientific minds in the world believe in god(s) of any kind.

also, the bible (Genesis 2:7) says that man was created from dust, so I'm not sure who you're laughing at, unless it's yourself?

Gerry T

BonsaiKitten wrote: »

Wrong. If you look at the allowance of time per subject religion is listed.
There's no curriculum for religion as it wouldn't be possible to write a curriculum covering every different belief, so the RCC, CoI, ET etc schools all have their own. The primary school is sticking with the stated curriculum.

You will find my statement is not wrong,

If you look at the primary school curriculum http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Cur.../Intro_Eng.pdf you won't find the word religion mentioned once and the only mention of the word catholic is mentioned twice and that's in reference to a catholic primary school association. So if the primary school could stick with the curriculum set out by the NCCA.

The word religion is not mentioned in the cirriculum, and catholic is only mentioned twice. SO how am I wrong ? Taking a brief look through the cirriculum the aim, apart from the typical subjects includes a section on development of a spiritual and moral values. I think the church see's that as a singular RCC religious education. Why not do a general RE class and not devote so much time during primary education to rituals like communion and confirmation

GreeBo

RustyNut wrote: »

What about the child's right to express their beliefs in a frank and open way without being bullied?

I already stated that I dont agree a 7 year old is equipped to make religious decisions of their own.
They will *always* follow their parents or just do what the rest of their friends are doing.

Or, follow the route that means they get to skive off classes.

vibe666

GreeBo wrote: »

Fair enough on your first point but I disagree with the second.

The OP is explaining transubstantiation to a child so they can make a choice on it, but you might as well ask the child do they believe in the atom.
Part of the religion is that children are baptised, christened, communion, confirmation, etc.
You/We may disagree but thats the religion, its similar in others (Judaism for example)

the church performs a child's first communion at 7 years of age and they spend a lot of time preparing for the event where they are expected to take the transubstantiated body and blood of christ into them and to understand what that means.

i don't understand why you think its perfectly okay for the catholic church to do this to 7 year old kids all over the country, but take issue with a non-religious father explaining it to their non-religious daughter so she can decide if she wants to take part in it with the other kids in her class or not?

IITYWYBMAD

GreeBo wrote: »

I already stated that I dont agree a 7 year old is equipped to make religious decisions of their own.
They will *always* follow their parents or just do what the rest of their friends are doing.

Or, follow the route that means they get to skive off classes.

What about the child's right to express their beliefs in a frank and open way without being bullied?

Irrespective of the ability of the Child to make decisions or not (which you have no basis at all to make) do you believe the 7 year old should have been threatened with removal from the school and told they *must* believe in this god?

What basis do you have for saying that 7 year olds will "always" do this or that. Do you have any kids?

sbsquarepants

bluewolf wrote: »

I said I agreed with you that explaining it to children is nonsense. And so the whole thing about making children commit to it at 7 is also nonsense.
But there's no point having a go at someone explaining to their child what exactly is involved in a process that the school want other 7 year olds to do

It's nonsense expecting 7 year olds to comprehend something like communion, but the whole point of the exercise is not understanding - it's mindless acceptance and obedience. It's much easier to plant lifelong lasting ideas if you get them in before the mind in question has developed the filters of credulity or logic and just rejects them at first mention.
I read a funny quote from someone or other many years ago that made perfect sense. "Religion is like circumcision, if you wait till someone turns 18, they probably aren't going to be interested" Very true.

Orion

Gerry T wrote: »

You will find my statement is not wrong,

If you look at the primary school curriculum http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Cur.../Intro_Eng.pdf you won't find the word religion mentioned once and the only mention of the word catholic is mentioned twice and that's in reference to a catholic primary school association. So if the primary school could stick with the curriculum set out by the NCCA.

The word religion is not mentioned in the cirriculum, and catholic is only mentioned twice. SO how am I wrong ? Taking a brief look through the cirriculum the aim, apart from the typical subjects includes a section on development of a spiritual and moral values. I think the church see's that as a singular RCC religious education. Why not do a general RE class and not devote so much time during primary education to rituals like communion and confirmation

It's mandatory for all primary schools to do 2.5 hours of religion every week. ET schools do what you suggest and do a curriculum based on world religion and morals/ethics. Faith based schools use it for indoctrination.

Simple solution - take religion out of state funded schools. Religion is a family's responsibility to teach - not the states.

[edit]Count it again - 30 instances of the word "religious" in that document - including in the Minister's Foreword.

Morgase

bajer101 wrote: »

I met the Principal this morning and it went well. My daughter will not have to partake in any Religious Education. When the rest of the class are doing RE, she can do other school work. The only slight problem would be with school masses. If I don't want her to attend those, I would have to have her collected. This isn't really an issue as I don't mind her attending the odd mass as long as she is not being told that she has to believe it all.

I'll chat with my daughter this evening and explain all this and about the other work she is to do during Religion.

That's really great. The school masses are probably fairly infrequent so hopefully shouldn't be too much hassle. It's good to hear that the Principal was reasonable about it all in the end.

Cabaal

GreeBo wrote: »

Its a Catholic school!
Of course they are going to expect the Catholic ethos.
There should be other options, but there arent.

The catholic parents of all the other kids dont expect or want their beliefs being challenged by others (children or teachers) hence they sent them to a Catholic school.

Catholic ethos means gay = bad,
Dept Of Education guidelines means gay = ok and not to be bullied.

So we have a situation where if a student is gay the school ethos hates them but the Dept Of Education thinks they are fine, I think I'll take my moral teachings from somebody other then the school ethos as their ethos is incompatiable with our anti-discrimination laws.

This is why right now a catholic ethos school can discriminate against gay teachers, its a shocking state of affairs. Teach respect for others....as long as you like them.

If any child in any catholic ethos school wants to talk about their family and their family just happens to be gay or one of them divorced they have every right in the world to talk about them.

Stop making excuses for the backward catholic ethos

Gerry T

GreeBo wrote: »

Interesting but not part of the argument.

You may as well ask why a boys soccer club wouldnt want a girl to join, even if there are no girls soccer clubs available nearby.

Arguing that there should be one isnt the point, there isnt.

Not really the same, I think you analogy would be better put if a soccer club received funding from the league, and the rules allowed for both boys and girls to play. Then if a soccer club excluded girls they would be refused the funding.

I have no problem with a catholic school dictating that only practicing catholics can attend, but I do have a problem when its state funded---my taxes, my money.

While its not really relevant there is nothing stopping a girl playing for a boys soccer team. In Dublin I know both the DDSL and SDFL leagues have girls playing on boys teams. The point I'm making is the Church shouldn't feel threatened if children want to explore other faiths, if they want to provide a means of RE education they should set up and fund their own "sunday" school. But in state funded schools no RE or Moral teaching class should be focused on a single religious belief.

When you boil it down how did the church accumulate all this property, by getting money from people, in essence all the school property etc... belong to the people. The church shouldn't have the say in what happens.

vibe666

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's nonsense expecting 7 year olds to comprehend something like communion, but the whole point of the exercise is not understanding - it's mindless acceptance and obedience. It's much easier to plant lifelong lasting ideas if you get them in before the mind in question has developed the filters of credulity or logic and just rejects them at first mention.
I read a funny quote from someone or other many years ago that made perfect sense. "Religion is like circumcision, if you wait till someone turns 18, they probably aren't going to be interested" Very true.

and that is exactly the problem in this country. people ticking census boxes as catholic as a pavlovian response to the question because they were indoctrinated as children, even though they are no longer practicing catholics in any meaningful way.

the 2011 census says 86% of people in ireland are catholic, but the churches own data put that figure at nearer 30% for practicing catholics.

Cabaal has it right. create a church tax and give people the option to opt out of paying it if they don't want their taxes to fund church sponsored taxpayer funded schools etc. and then we'll really see who still wants to be considered catholic when the next census comes around.

StudentDad

Orion wrote: »

It's mandatory for all primary schools to do 2.5 hours of religion every week. ET schools do what you suggest and do a curriculum based on world religion and morals/ethics. Faith based schools use it for indoctrination.

Simple solution - take religion out of state funded schools. Religion is a family's responsibility to teach - not the states.

There's the problem. I imagine the church would resist such a move tooth and nail. If such practices were removed from the school day, how many parents would bother with Sunday School etc?

SD

Orion

Cabaal wrote: »

This is why right now a catholic ethos school can discriminate against gay teachers, its a shocking state of affairs. Teach respect for others....as long as you like them.

And students under the Equal Status Act. Although according to reports yesterday that may be changing - the Section 37 exception for schools and hospitals is being removed.

Orion

StudentDad wrote: »

There's the problem. I imagine the church would resist such a move tooth and nail. If such practices were removed from the school day, how many parents would bother with Sunday School etc?

SD

Not the state's problem. If they are devout enough they will. And tbh I don't care whether the church like it or not. Why should the state financially sponsor their religious indoctrination on 90% of school going children? Schools should be all inclusive and religion should be separate.

RustyNut

GreeBo wrote: »

I already stated that I dont agree a 7 year old is equipped to make religious decisions of their own.
They will *always* follow their parents or just do what the rest of their friends are doing.

Or, follow the route that means they get to skive off classes.

I would have expected a professional educator, even a devout catholic teaching in a (state paid for)"catholic" school to take one of their students declaring that they don't believe in god during a religion class as an opportunity to have a discussion on the matter not tell the kid that they must believe or bad things will happen.

The kid in this instance has nothing to worry about imo as their dad is obviously well on top of his game but how many other kids don't have someone like the OP in their corner and get the same oppressive treatment?

NewCorkLad

bajer101 wrote: »

I met the Principal this morning and it went well. My daughter will not have to partake in any Religious Education. When the rest of the class are doing RE, she can do other school work. The only slight problem would be with school masses. If I don't want her to attend those, I would have to have her collected. This isn't really an issue as I don't mind her attending the odd mass as long as she is not being told that she has to believe it all.

I'll chat with my daughter this evening and explain all this and about the other work she is to do during Religion.

Handled very well through out OP, you should be proud and you set a great example for your daughter about to responsibly handle a difficult situation.

Cabaal

Orion wrote: »

And students under the Equal Status Act. Although according to reports yesterday that may be changing - the Section 37 exception for schools and hospitals is being removed.

Yes, changing in a few months time.
So schools are only now going to be equal to other work places with it comes to gay employee's.

Hard to teach respect for people when they wanted special exceptions to hate a group of people you don't like due to catholic ethos.

Red Nissan

bajer101 wrote: »

When the rest of the class are doing RE, she can do other school work.

In a different room?

Gerry T

Orion wrote: »

It's mandatory for all primary schools to do 2.5 hours of religion every week. ET schools do what you suggest and do a curriculum based on world religion and morals/ethics. Faith based schools use it for indoctrination.

Simple solution - take religion out of state funded schools. Religion is a family's responsibility to teach - not the states.

[edit]Count it again - 30 instances of the word "religious" in that document - including in the Minister's Foreword.

Your right, I did a word search for religion, not religious the first time. Had another read through....its scary. This document leaves the religious education and curriculum totally in the hand of the church FFS !!!
It eludes to the curriculum having a respectful approach to all faiths & beliefs but my experience the majority of RCC run schools focus totally on their faith.
I must say I'm shocked at what's in this document
http://www.ncca.ie/uploadedfiles/Curriculum/Intro_Eng.pdf
This probably did reflect the vast majority of people back in 1960, but in my opinion doesn't reflect even a small percentage of people today.
The only good point was on pg 58 which stated all schools have a responsibility to make alternative arrangements for people who don't want education in the schools religious beliefs.
It is the responsibility of the school to provide a
religious education that is consonant with its ethos and at the same time
to be flexible in making alternative organisational arrangements for those
who do not wish to avail of the particular religious education it offers. It is
equally important that the beliefs and sensibilities of every child are respected
By extension would that mean a school can not discriminate on religious identity when seeking a place in a school -- to me this practise contradicts the above school responsibility.

bajer101

Red Nissan wrote: »

In a different room?

No, same room. While it's not ideal (ideally there should be no Religion in any state funded schools), I'm happy with the outcome. My original problem was that she was being told that she had to believe in God and that has been more than resolved.

Gerry T

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes, changing in a few months time.
So schools are only now going to be equal to other work places with it comes to gay employee's.

Hard to teach respect for people when they wanted special exceptions to hate a group of people you don't like due to catholic ethos.

You see the church believes being gay is a life choice, not a trait your born with. SO don't let your kids watch anything on TV with gay people on it, or they may decide to be gay themselves !!

RustyNut

bajer101 wrote: »

No, same room. While it's not ideal (ideally there should be no Religion in any state funded schools), I'm happy with the outcome. My original problem was that she was being told that she had to believe in God and that has been more than resolved.

Well done sir. I would like to nominate you as most reasonable and restrained poster of the year.

Cabaal

Gerry T wrote: »

You see the church believes being gay is a life choice, not a trait your born with.

The church goes a step further, they call being gay "unnatural"

You know whats really unnatural when you look at species on our planet.....people that repress their basic natural sexual urges.

Gay and non gay people are doing the most natural thing in the world, being gay isn't even restricted to our species.

But repressing the urge to have sex and form a bond with another of our same species isn't natural at all.

vibe666

RustyNut wrote: »

Well done sir. I would like to nominate you as most reasonable and restrained poster of the year.

damn, there goes my chances! :pac:

/sarcasm

StudentDad

Orion wrote: »

Not the state's problem. If they are devout enough they will. And tbh I don't care whether the church like it or not. Why should the state financially sponsor their religious indoctrination on 90% of school going children? Schools should be all inclusive and religion should be separate.

Yes I don't disagree with that. However, the churches will and are I imagine resisting all attempts to remove such religious teaching from schools.

For me religious practice is a private matter to be attended to outside of school hours.

SD

vibe666

GreeBo wrote: »

I have already stated that I think it was handled badly by the principle at least.
Why do you refuse to accept that the parent caused this issue by not mentioning something to the school about their special requirements for their child?

because the parent didn't cause the issue, the teacher did by breaching the constitutional rights of the child.

ANY child in this state has a constitutional right to NOT have any religion forced on them regardless of what they may have believed up to that point and regardless of any ethos the school may hold if that school receives public funding.

If another baptised child of catholic parents had decided one day that they didn't believe in god that would be their right also and neither a teacher nor principle have any right to try and force religion onto them by telling them that they HAVE to believe in god and threaten to expel them if they do not.

GreeBo

vibe666 wrote: »

the church performs a child's first communion at 7 years of age and they spend a lot of time preparing for the event where they are expected to take the transubstantiated body and blood of christ into them and to understand what that means.

i don't understand why you think its perfectly okay for the catholic church to do this to 7 year old kids all over the country, but take issue with a non-religious father explaining it to their non-religious daughter so she can decide if she wants to take part in it with the other kids in her class or not?

I think its ok for Catholic schools to do this to children that are Catholic.

I take issue with a non-religious father putting his child into the situation where they are the ones who get to explain to the school that actually that dont believe in God, when at that age they clearly dont have the ability to do so.

Dades

GreeBo wrote: »

You really think its logical that a 7 year old can logically deduce that its nonsense to belief in a single deity but that they can believe in evolution and that "we are advanced monkeys"?
Children cant comprehend either of these things, they are children.

The horrible irony is that, in my opinion, only children can believe in the catholic God when freshly presented with the information. You leave it until they're old enough to really assess the truth and most of them will reject it out of hand.

I believe the church knows this, and deep down most parents do too. Hence the determination to get them funneled into that mindset from an early age.

I also think many adults do a disservice to 7 and 8 year olds in terms of their comprehension. Kids don't reject the idea of God because they examined that facts and are convinced by the evidence, they don't reject the God concept because they're brought up not to question and with the promise of a Big Day Out and a Swiss bank account.

vibe666

GreeBo wrote: »

I think its ok for Catholic schools to do this to children that are Catholic.

I take issue with a non-religious father putting his child into the situation where they are the ones who get to explain to the school that actually that dont believe in God, when at that age they clearly dont have the ability to do so.

i think you might need to read the thread again, the OP has explained exactly what happened and it is not how you seem to think it did.

Also, just to confirm, unless I am misunderstanding you, what you seem to be saying is that you think it's perfectly okay for teachers to breach Irish Constitutional and EU laws to force religion onto a child that doesn't want it?

you think it's okay for a child to be indoctrinated against their will just because they have a baptismal cert (which the OP's daughter does have btw)?