Mary says YES!

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I certainly do, but it appears other posters here were not aware of these other options.

The problem is that these are not viable, realistic and above all fair options for the vast majority of non-catholic parents - and there are not nearly enough places in non-catholic schools to go around anyway even if all non-catholic parents could access them.

NB even if a family uproots itself to try to get a child into a non-catholic school, which is frankly ridiculous to expect them to have to do, many ETs operate on the principle of first come, first served and to be sure of a place names need to be down on the list at birth. So they'd still be fecked

I haven't experienced this discrimination with regards to enrollment at least

So you're all right, Jack?

which is the context in which I was making that point. I would have thought the requirement that there was already a child in the school seems to be a more discriminatory barrier to over-subscribed schools.

The sibling rule makes life that little bit easier for parents not having to needlessly drag two or more primary age children to different schools. Of course if they're not the same sex then most schools won't accept the sibling anyway. Our education system is certainly not run in the interests of parents, it's not really run in the interests of children either, and it's certainly not run in the interests of taxpayers, otherwise we'd have far fewer and inclusive schools.

And for the majority of parents that want their children to have religious instruction during the normal school day?

What's your evidence that they do want this? Many catholic parents are perfectly happy to send their kids to an ET and do the woo after hours

Even if they do, could there not be one half-day a week and allow the kids opting out to be taken home?

PopePalpatine

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Much more accurate now. You're welcome.

What's the odds he'll actually come back to discuss ^this post rather than regurgitating Legatus Lackey bollocks?

Dan_Solo

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-indicates-three-quarters-of-parents-want-change-in-primary-school-patronage-434184-Apr2012/

A NEW POLL commissioned by the Irish Primary Principals Network has shown that three out of four parents would send their children to schools run by patrons other than Churches if they had a choice.

"Oh but they do have a choice"...

One eyed Jack

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-indicates-three-quarters-of-parents-want-change-in-primary-school-patronage-434184-Apr2012/
"Oh but they do have a choice"...

What about the evidence before your eyes Dan?

Most parents send their children to Catholic ethos schools, and that is a fact. If they were actually unhappy to do so, or did not want to do so, maybe they too have been subjected to the same story as now appears in the curriculum and they were "brainwashed" into sending their children to Catholic ethos schools even though they really didn't want to? :rolleyes:

looksee I haven't dominated anything. I asked for one single piece of evidence from nearly the first page of this thread, and for all the crap I took from posters whom I would assume are supposed to be mature adults, not one, not, one, was able to provide a single piece of evidence for their claims.

Kiwi said earlier that I had better get used to people complaining and campaigning for secular education (I have been even campaigning for a secular society since before my own child was born, but don't let that stand in the way of a good soapbox, chest beating post), so why then is there so much opposition when I ask a simple question like people are attempting to humiliate me into silence? What did they think was going to happen, by their own standards? I'm supposed to take their claims seriously while they don't care what I think?

That is the very basis of authoritarianism. Out with the old and in with the new, and the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You were also incorrect in stating that I based my opinion solely on my own child's cognitive abilities. I have said it numerous times on this thread that the adults here clearly don't give children (plural) enough credit, and that opinion is based on nearly 20 years of working with children and their parents from disadvantaged backgrounds.

What you and others here have claimed would happen, or could happen, or any of the rest of it, you talk about it as though it were a foregone conclusion. Yet in any other respect, you would ask someone for evidence to back up their claims. Going with your gut feeling when it suits you, and looking for evidence from other people when their opinions contradict your prejudices fuelled by paranoia.

To top it all off then you claim that I am responsible for the way this thread has gone. I have not forced anyone here to reply. Those people are responsible for their own actions. They would hold anyone else responsible for their own actions, so why not themselves? That is the height of authoritarianism fuelled by arrogance.

With that said, I shall leave you to your online echo chamber. It seems I was deluded to think that I was welcome in this forum, or that different opinions are welcome in this forum, as I have maintained a civil and respectful attitude to all posters here, and got nothing but abuse and scorn in return. If those are the methods used to further your aims for a secular society, it's no wonder it's taking this bloody long to achieve that, and we're still not even out of the starting blocks, because the attitude I meet from many adults is - I would if I could but I can't, whereas children, different story altogether, they get enthusiastic and motivated when presented with challenges to overcome, and don't just lie back and accept it.

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Most parents send their children to Catholic ethos schools, and that is a fact.

Everybody dies and pays taxes. That's a fact.
So I suppose we should conclude that everybody wants to die and pay taxes, huh.

anothernight

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Everybody dies and pays taxes. That's a fact.
So I suppose we should conclude that everybody wants to die and pay taxes, huh.

You're wrong. It's not a fact, it's a truth. :pac:

Dan_Solo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If those are the methods used to further your aims for a secular society, it's no wonder it's taking this bloody long to achieve that, and we're still not even out of the starting blocks, because the attitude I meet from many adults is - I would if I could but I can't, whereas children, different story altogether, they get enthusiastic and motivated when presented with challenges to overcome, and don't just lie back and accept it.

Checks historical priesthood and mass attendance numbers... nope. Aw.

Dan_Solo

anothernight wrote: »

You're wrong. It's not a fact, it's a truth. :pac:

It's my choice to believe it is a factual truth though.

Mr. CooL ICE

Going by your line of arguing, the only bit of evidence you would ever accept would be if you were to sit quietly in a senior infants class (in a catholic ethos school!) for an entire year and observe the religious teachings given to the children.

Until then, you can bang on about not being given a single shred of evidence all you like. I, for one, realise that debating with you is like arguing with a brick wall.

Dan_Solo

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Going by your line of arguing, the only bit of evidence you would ever accept would be if you were to sit quietly in a senior infants class (in a catholic ethos school!) for an entire year and observe the religious teachings given to the children.

Until then, you can bang on about not being given a single shred of evidence all you like. I, for one, realise that debating with you is like arguing with a brick wall.

Not even that, he'd then claim that was anecdotal and therefore not evidence. And even if you did a survey of every last child and found every last one perceived these fairytale books were facts, he'd then say they weren't presented as facts.
I mean, it's never ending nonsense.

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's my choice to believe it is a factual truth though.

Is it a truthful fact though?

swampgas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not even that, he'd then claim that was anecdotal and therefore not evidence. And even if you did a survey of every last child and found every last one perceived these fairytale books were facts, he'd then say they weren't presented as facts.
I mean, it's never ending nonsense.

[Faithsplaining mode on]

Well accepting the actual evidence at face value would lead to a logical chain of events in OEJ's head that would smash the Chinese wall that exists between what he believes and knows to be real, and what he "believes" based on faith but knows deep down isn't real at all.

This type of tortuous mental gymnastics is unfortunately far too familiar on this forum - you simply can't get someone to accept a fact that's right under their nose if accepting that fact will undermine some dearly held belief. It's a bit like a self-imposed super-injunction: not only must the believer deny obvious facts to themselves in order to maintain a faith-based position, they must also suppress the knowledge that they are actually engaging in self-deception. "Faith formation" is teaching children how to perform these mental gymnastics, which is why to many non-religious people it is so objectionable - it can permanently damage your ability to think clearly.

It would be interesting to know exactly what evidence OEJ would accept that would make him agree that this particular piece of educational literature is in fact contrary to best practice for child protection. I suspect that like many creationists, the answer is no evidence would change his mind, because he isn't prepared to change his mind in the first place.

[Faithsplaining mode off]

frostyjacks

The conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that people who have taken issue with the textbook are just spoofing.

If they genuinely thought it was contrary to child protection teachings, then they would be straight onto the teachers, or even the Gardaí. Why are they content to sit back and allow thousands of children be exposed to this dangerous message? Much easier to backslap and high-five each other on here.

Pherekydes

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Going by your line of arguing, the only bit of evidence you would ever accept would be if you were to sit quietly in a senior infants class (in a catholic ethos school!) for an entire year and observe the religious teachings given to the children.

What about all the other classrooms in all the other schools?

OEJ wants it proven for every single child in every single classroom in every single school, simultaneously.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that people who have taken issue with the textbook are just spoofing.

If they genuinely thought it was contrary to child protection teachings, then they would be straight onto the teachers, or even the Gardaí.

Gardai? Are you friggin kidding me?
Only an idiot goes to the Gardai about something like this....to even suggest going to the Gardai is utterly clueless..its not a criminal matter. (unless of course there's a case where this was a factor)

Additionally...teachers? What do you think a single teacher can do?

I've previously contacted the Dept Of Education about this issue, the most appropriate contact to reach out to. In addition I've raised concerns with Barnardos etc.

Seriously, I really hope Gardai are not your first, second or even third choice of contact for stuff you don't agree with or find concerning like this topic. I'm actually shocked that somebody would make such a utterly clueless suggestion and try to waste Gardai time with it.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Gardai? Are you friggin kidding me?
Only an idiot goes to the Gardai about something like this....to even suggest going to the Gardai is utterly clueless..its not a criminal matter. (unless of course there's a case where this was a factor)

Additionally...teachers? What do you think a single teacher can do?

I've previously contacted the Dept Of Education about this issue, the most appropriate contact to reach out to. In addition I've raised concerns with Barnardos etc.

Seriously, I really hope Gardai are not your first, second or even third choice of contact for stuff you don't agree with or find concerning like this topic. I'm actually shocked that somebody would make such a utterly clueless suggestion and try to waste Gardai time with it.

Barbados etc.? Seriously? Do you not think children's charities have more important things to be doing than indulging your paranoid delusions?

Do let us know how they respond, if they even dignify it with a response.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Barbados etc.? Seriously? Do you not think children's charities have more important things to be doing than indulging your paranoid delusions?

I'm sorry,
You don't appear to have a clue about what Bernardo's do, do you?

http://www.barnardos.ie/what-we-do/campaign-and-lobby.html

Oh look they campaign and lobby in relation to education and child protection...too topics which apply to the concerns in relation to this issue.

As a none government organizations they are more then appropriate to raise concerns about this issue with, its one of the reasons why they exist...

:rolleyes:

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Barbados etc.? Seriously? Do you not think children's charities have more important things to be doing than indulging your paranoid delusions?

Do let us know how they respond, if they even dignify it with a response.

Why would Barbados need to know about an Irish religious textbook?

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sorry,
You don't appear to have a clue about what Bernardo's do, do you?

http://www.barnardos.ie/what-we-do/campaign-and-lobby.html

Oh look they campaign and lobby in relation to education and child protection...too topics which apply to the concerns in relation to this issue.

As a none government organizations they are more then appropriate to raise concerns about this issue with, its one of the reasons why they exist...

:rolleyes:

So how did they respond?

Pherekydes

frostyjacks wrote: »

Barbados...

Whooo, I'm going to Barbados,
Whooo, back to the palm trees,
Whooo, I'm going to see my girlfriend,
Whooo, in the sunny Caribbean sea,

:pac:

Cabaal

frostyjacks, its evident that you just like to moan about anyone who you don't agree with,

When you make the mistaken belief that nobody has raised there concerns you try and belittle people for doing nothing,
When somebody says they've raised their concerns then you still moan,

Its evident you have no real interest in this topic and you're just here to moan regardless of what is or is not done, its all rather silly.
If you think the whole thing is pointless then why are you even reading or posting in this thread?

robindch

Mod:

frostyjacks wrote: »

Do you not think children's charities have more important things to be doing than indulging your paranoid delusions?

And I'm sure most posters here have more important things to do than indulging yours.

As a general comment, try toning down the rhetoric a little and you'll come across as less unhinged than you currently do.

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

frostyjacks, its evident that you just like to moan about anyone who you don't agree with,

When you make the mistaken belief that nobody has raised there concerns you try and belittle people for doing nothing,
When somebody says they've raised their concerns then you still moan,

Its evident you have no real interest in this topic and you're just here to moan regardless of what is or is not done, its all rather silly.
If you think the whole thing is pointless then why are you even reading or posting in this thread?

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

Because our children often have to attend such religious schools and the religious instruction we're allowed to opt out of is regarded as the most important school subject by the Department of Education in terms of what children in national schools learn.

I would think any parent worth their salt keeps a close eye on the materials used in the schools their children attend.

pauldla

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

Loopholes?

To find out just how far human kicks can go?

Shgits and giggles?

I suspect you have an answer in mind already, though.

Dan_Solo

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are atheists reading religious textbooks?

Because the state forces them to. BOOM.
Why are Catholics reading atheist chat boards?

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

[Faithsplaining mode on]

Well accepting the actual evidence at face value would lead to a logical chain of events in OEJ's head that would smash the Chinese wall that exists between what he believes and knows to be real, and what he "believes" based on faith but knows deep down isn't real at all.

This type of tortuous mental gymnastics is unfortunately far too familiar on this forum - you simply can't get someone to accept a fact that's right under their nose if accepting that fact will undermine some dearly held belief. It's a bit like a self-imposed super-injunction: not only must the believer deny obvious facts to themselves in order to maintain a faith-based position, they must also suppress the knowledge that they are actually engaging in self-deception. "Faith formation" is teaching children how to perform these mental gymnastics, which is why to many non-religious people it is so objectionable - it can permanently damage your ability to think clearly.

[Faithsplaining mode off]

That's an absolutely spot on description, swamp gas.

I love how we sometimes come across little pearls here, it's what keeps me coming back, despite all the other nonsense!

Dan_Solo

lazygal wrote: »

Why would Barbados need to know about an Irish religious textbook?

Are there any priests formerly involved in education in Ireland "on holiday" there?

Cabaal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are there any priests formerly involved in education in Ireland "on holiday" there?

95.5% christian country, good chance of it

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

95.5% christian country, good chance of it

So did anyone respond to your concerns?