40% would prefer non-Christian school - Equate Ireland

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

Are they school age? How did you/will you manage the school situation?

Gealscoil, travel about 25 min each way daily. Don't have an issue with it, it's a good school and that's all I care about. Only 1 in school currently.

Shrap

c montgomery wrote: »

We're all the mods on this forum cut from the same cloth. Very little balance or diverse opinions among them.

Looksee is not a moderator of this forum. Even if she was, it should come as no surprise that the moderators on the Atheism & Agnosticism forum are Atheists.

Cabaal

c montgomery wrote: »

Yawn

We're all the mods on this forum cut from the same cloth. Very little balance or diverse opinions among them.

I'll leave ye to it, best of luck but I don't see much changing in the short term, hopefully

looksee and myself are not mods of this forum, we are normal posters the same as you. So not sure what us being mods of other forums has to do with anything.

Just because something has existed in such previously that made some catholics happy is not a good enough excuse for things not to change.

In years passed we used to charge people for being gay as it was illegal to perform homosexual acts, when it came to changing this the catholic church was opposed to it. Changing it upset an awful lot of catholics.

The catholic church also massively opposed making changes to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. Changing this upset some Catholics.

The catholic church also opposed the Irish state giving single mothers an allowance, they were very much against this idea and changing it upset some Catholics as they saw such women as dirty.

If we took the mindset that just because something has existed a certain way for decades and that changing it might upset some Catholics then we'd still be living in 1950's Ireland.

Like it or not Ireland is a multi cultural country, we can't continue to discriminate against all other faiths and none just because it might upset some catholics...especially when our tax payer money is being used to fund this discrimination. Its unacceptable.

Mary63

The schools are doing just that eviltwin,your child can colour while the religion class is going on,as I said already the only reason your child has to stay in the class is because there is no one to supervise her elsewhere,its not as if anyone gives a damn whether she learns religion or not.

Its the same re learning of foreign languages in secondary school,students have to do the language because there isn't anyone else for them to be while languages are timetabled,a child with an irish exemption will have supervised study but for some reason supervised study isn't available for students not wanting to do foreign languages.Students in senior cycle don't have to do a foreign language at all,at this stage they are probably allowed to supervise themselves.

Really and truly it would be far better for you to use whatever time and contacts you have to fight for all children to have equal access to education,i.e. the parents and children who live with children's disabilities and don't have the luxury of worrying about religion.They have to fight for even basic assistance so their children can be educated and you are wasting politicians time bombarding them with your selfish self centred demands.Try and look outside your own blinkered vision of the world for a few moments and thank your lucky stars that you have so little to be worrying about.

c montgomery

Mary63 wrote: »

The schools are doing just that eviltwin,your child can colour while the religion class is going on,as I said already the only reason your child has to stay in the class is because there is no one to supervise her elsewhere,its not as if anyone gives a damn whether she learns religion or not.

Its the same re learning of foreign languages in secondary school,students have to do the language because there isn't anyone else for them to be while languages are timetabled,a child with an irish exemption will have supervised study but for some reason supervised study isn't available for students not wanting to do foreign languages.Students in senior cycle don't have to do a foreign language at all,at this stage they are probably allowed to supervise themselves.

Really and truly it would be far better for you to use whatever time and contacts you have to fight for all children to have equal access to education,i.e. the parents and children who live with children's disabilities and don't have the luxury of worrying about religion.They have to fight for even basic assistance so their children can be educated and you are wasting politicians time bombarding them with your selfish self centred demands.Try and look outside your own blinkered vision of the world for a few moments and thank your lucky stars that you have so little to be worrying about.

Mary speaks the most sense on this forum.

eviltwin

Mary63 wrote: »

The schools are doing just that eviltwin,your child can colour while the religion class is going on,as I said already the only reason your child has to stay in the class is because there is no one to supervise her elsewhere,its not as if anyone gives a damn whether she learns religion or not.

Its the same re learning of foreign languages in secondary school,students have to do the language because there isn't anyone else for them to be while languages are timetables,a child with an irish exemption will have supervised study but for some reason supervised study isn't available for students not wanting to do foreign languages.Students in senior cycle don't have to do a foreign language at all,at this stage they are probably allowed to supervise themselves.

Really and truly it would be far better for you to use whatever time and contacts you have to fight for all children to have equal access to education,i.e. the parents and children who live with children's disabilities and don't have the luxury of worrying about religion.They have to fight for even basic assistance so their children can be educated and you are wasting politicians time bombarding them with your selfish self centred demands.Try and look outside your own blinkered vision of the world for a few moments and thank your lucky stars that you have so little to be worrying about.

My child does not go to a Catholic school Mary, my eldest did and was allowed opt out of religion to sit in the library. We as a family are not personally affected by this but I empathise with families who do struggle which is why I support the campaign. There is nothing selfish about wanting your child to be accepted into the local school. It's the way it should be. It's unfair to expect parents to make car journeys to schools outside their neighbourhood when one is there on their doorstep. Although I don't have a faith I know a lot of people who do and I believe faith is something that should be treated with respect. Sacraments are something that should be treated with respect. A religion is a deeply personal relationship with whichever God you believe in. It should not be used as a tool for gaining an advantage.

Stealthfins

Shrap wrote:

Looksee is not a moderator of this forum. Even if she was, it should come as no surprise that the moderators on the Atheism & Agnosticism forum are Atheists.

So much for secularism and free for all.

Maybe it should be 60/40

Cabaal

Stealthfins wrote: »

So much for secularism and free for all.

Maybe it should be 60/40

This is off-topic, but how is there any restriction on what people are saying here?

Its logical enough to expect an atheist to be a mod of this forum, just like it makes sense that you'd have a person that likely enjoys smoking to be modding the smoking forum or a person with an interest in Mac's to mod the Mac forum.

A person having an interest in the forum they mod in no way causes censorship or discrimination. If you think it does then this thread isn't the place to be posting about such things. Maybe PM a mod or something if you have concerns.

Anyway, how about we get back to the topic of discrimination in our tax payer funded schools and how 40% want to see change to this

Stealthfins

The thing is I've just demonstrated how it's hard to keep everyone happy.

40% of people want a change and probably 30% don't care and another 30% don't want a change.

So I think the 40% who want a change are the majority.

c montgomery

Stealthfins wrote: »

The thing is I've just demonstrated how it's hard to keep everyone happy.

40% of people want a change and probably 30% don't care and another 30% don't want a change.

So I think the 40% who want a change are the majority.

Don't discriminate against us minoritys now that you're in a position of power

marmurr1916

Eventually there's going to be pressure for a referendum to amend the constitution in such a way that the state is obliged to provide for secular education.

In the interim, and given the forthcoming Rule 68 change, it shouldn't be very difficult for schools to timetable religious instruction so that classes are held either first thing Monday morning or last thing Friday afternoon.

Schools should then be compelled to tell parents that attendance at these classes is not compulsory (a right upheld by the Constitution but which some schools and many parents seem to be unaware of) and parents should be free to bring their kids into school later on a Monday morning or bring them home earlier on a Friday afternoon.

An alternative would be for religious instruction to be held on Wednesday afternoons. Kids attending would spend Wednesday afternoons getting religious instruction, kids not attending would get a half-day.

If options to make it easier to exercise the constitutional right not to attend classes of religious instruction in schools were put in place, my guess is that attendance at these classes would fall significantly.

Cabaal

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Eventually there's going to be pressure for a referendum to amend the constitution in such a way that the state is obliged to provide for secular education.

In the interim, and given the forthcoming Rule 68 change, it shouldn't be very difficult for schools to timetable religious instruction so that classes are held either first thing Monday morning or last thing Friday afternoon.

Schools should then be compelled to tell parents that attendance at these classes is not compulsory (a right upheld by the Constitution but which some schools and many parents seem to be unaware of) and parents should be free to bring their kids into school later on a Monday morning or bring them home earlier on a Friday afternoon.

An alternative would be for religious instruction to be held on Wednesday afternoons. Kids attending would spend Wednesday afternoons getting religious instruction, kids not attending would get a half-day.

If options to make it easier to exercise the constitutional right not to attend classes of religious instruction in schools were put in place, my guess is that attendance at these classes would fall significantly.

A extremely reasonable solution that allows religion indoctrination to still take place for the Catholics that want it for their children.

This along with removing the catholic enrollment requirement would go a long way to equality in our school system.

Shrap

Cabaal wrote: »

A extremely reasonable solution that allows religion indoctrination to still take place for the Catholics that want it for their children.

This along with removing the catholic enrollment requirement would go a long way to equality in our school system.

Yup, I'd be happy with that solution in the interim.

magicbastarder

Mary63 wrote: »

The schools are doing just that eviltwin,your child can colour while the religion class is going on

eh; not if the child was denied entry in the first place.

frostyjacks

So the answer to perceived segregation is....more segregation? Or is ok to discriminate so long as it's against Catholics?

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

So the answer to perceived segregation is....more segregation? Or is ok to discriminate so long as it's against Catholics?

Who is discriminating against Catholics, or segregation? You can hardly take the high ground as someone who support discrimination against people who aren't Catholic.

Im amazed by the people who try to argue about school patronage and have no idea what they are talking about.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

So the answer to perceived segregation is....more segregation? Or is ok to discriminate so long as it's against Catholics?

Yes, equal access to education = discrimination against Catholics :rolleyes:

Bristolscale7

Frosty is presenting a crude version of the argument put forward by others here. To wit, it is discrimination against catholics to deny them the right to discriminate against non catholics. This is the current, perverse position of the government. In other words, denying the ability of the catholic church to discriminate is a denial, so the argument goes, of a constitutional right!

Cabaal

Delirium wrote: »

Yes, equal access to education = discrimination against Catholics :rolleyes:

Its "segregation" because all the Catholics that have to do religion in the evening will get upset when all the non-catholics get to go home early for a half day.

This in turn will lead to some students in secondary level in particular to want to opt out of religion so they can also finish early and not do the subject that they have no interest in and is no good to them at leaving cert level. :pac:

Thats why he's claiming segregation if we followed the idea set out by marmurr1916. It would signal the end for catholic religion classes over time in secondary level and understandably so, after all the vast majority of teenagers don't give a monkeys about Jebus.

Mary63

How do you know the vast majority of teenagers have no interest in religion cabal,this may be true for Catholic and church of Ireland teenagers but it most certainly isn't true for Muslims.My children really enjoy their religion class in school,the teacher is very trendy and good fun and the class is very interesting.The teens I know would jump at the chance to never sit in an Irish class again,they have no objection to being taught religion and in fact they participate fully in the class.

I very much doubt if most working parents would be happy to send their child into school late so they could avoid religion or take time off work every wednesday afternoon to avoid religion class.A few weeks of this and only the most die hard anti religious person would continue with this arrangement,it wouldn't be practical at all for most working parents.

marmurr1916

frostyjacks wrote: »

So the answer to perceived segregation is....more segregation? Or is ok to discriminate so long as it's against Catholics?

Only Catholics receive religious instruction at schools in Ireland? No other Christian denominations, no non-Christian religions?

All I proposed is a system that would make it easier for parents to exercise constitutional rights.

Have you got a problem with people exercising constitutional rights?

Mary63

My children go to a COI secondary school and they definitely have religion classes marmurr1916,the religion teacher was very popular so the students wanted to do religion,isn't it an exam subject now.

The religion teacher left this year under some sort of a murky cloud,the teens were upset to discover he was gone in September.

You can't exercise your constitutional rights at the expense of the majority and I still think the majority want a church in their parish and want the school and church linked.

We could have a referendum but only a few thousand will show up,they will be the Athiests because no one else gives a damn.If the referendum is passed it will be because the majority couldn't be bothered to turn out,can you have a referendum if only a few thousand vote.

Cabaal

Mary63 wrote: »

How do you know the vast majority of teenagers have no interest in religion cabal,this may be true for Catholic and church of Ireland teenagers but it most certainly isn't true for Muslims.

You've answered your own question,
You've already claimed that the vast majority of catholic parents want religion in schools, and they represent a majority when it comes to our education system.

You've also now admitted that you agree with my statement about the vast majority of teenagers having no interest in religion. As such the MAJORITY of teenagers have no real interest in Jebus.

Muslim teenagers represent a tiny minority in Ireland, far far far less then the number of non-believers in Ireland (atheists).

As such you've actually answered your own question

eviltwin

When people really care about an issue they make an effort to come out to vote so if they can't be bothered that says it all. Those who are religious will continue to be so, those who only want a day out will still do that. How do you think those families with kids in ETs manage to teach their children about their faith Mary? In their church of course. Why can't the RCC do the same? Growing up in our services the children went to a bible study class while the parents sat in mass, we got to learn and our parents got to have mass in peace. I'm sure it would work well unless the parents don't bother with mass and just want the school to cover their laziness which I expect it is for the vast majority. My child loved religion so much she did it for the leaving. Wanting to learn about other people and their beliefs doesn't mean you want to be religious. I suspect it's an easy option for a lot of students.

Mary63

I said it may be true cabal,I don't actually know though.

I do know when the Berkeley tragedy happened the teens went in their droves to their local churches,the entire communities met together in the local church and in the community halls and the various schools and the local clergy co ordinated the response.

I can't speak on behalf of teenagers.

The vast majority of the population though aren't looking for change eviltwin so clearly there is no need to hold a referendum,we hold referendums when its clear that something needs to be debated,discussed and a majority wish prevail.

Why would Enda kenny think there is any need to hold a referendum when every denominational schools is bursting at the seams,he has far more important things to do with his time and quite honestly we don't need this unnecessary expense.

Why should the RCC parents worry about teaching their children faith,they know their children are learning enough faith in schools,the parents are happy about this,if they weren't there would be enough children who want to colour instead to justify employing someone to mind them in the hall.

It isn't me who has a problem with our first class education system,its you eviltwin who does.I am too grateful to be living in a peaceful country with a nice school for my children to attend,Im not looking for any change at all.

Cabaal

Mary63 wrote: »

We could have a referendum but only a few thousand will show up,they will be the Athiests because no one else gives a damn.If the referendum is passed it will be because the majority couldn't be bothered to turn out,can you have a referendum if only a few thousand vote.

You truly make some amusing posts,

We don't need to have a referendum on this matter, our constitution already allows for the freedom of other faiths and none.

We merely need the Irish government to step up to the mark and properly deal with the issue of discrimination in Irish schools before they are forced to do it by the EU. Wouldn't be the first time the Irish government has failed to act.

We only need referendums on issues enshrined in our constitution such as the silly inclusion in relation to marriage which as I'm sure you can remember the catholic church was fiercely against at every turn and they were more then happy to preach about how they were against it during last years communion ceremony's (how loving was that!)

So now we have a system where a child who has gay parents enters into a state funded catholic ethos school where in reality their parents are seen as sinful and against the wishes of god. Yet the parents marriage is perfectly legal under the Irish state.

Up until very very recently we also had a situation where a state paid for teacher could be fired for being gay or lesbian in a catholic ethos school, something that would be against the law for any other employer in the state to do.

We still have a situation in these same schools where the school can fire a non-catholic teacher and as we know historically a school previously got rid of a teacher for getting pregnant outside of marriage.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic and shameful that we have this sort of situations and all along we have children being used and abused in the name of "faith" and "ethos".

We also have people that mindlessly defend the church and the current model with next to no thought about the children being affected by this, utterly shameful.

eviltwin

Oh Mary come on. Did the referendum on the Seanad or marriage equality have anything to do with the majority?

Cabaal

Mary63 wrote: »

I am too grateful to be living in a peaceful country with a nice school for my children to attend,Im not looking for any change at all.

A country that has many things that you can now do because people went against the catholic church's views and teachings, isn't it great.

The church were after all against such things as:
- The sale of condoms
- Being gay being made legal
- Marriage Equality
- Divorce
- Single mothers being given money by the Irish state
- Sex education in our education system

I'm sure you don't look forward to change, but thankfully change in this country has brought such fantastic things as as it being made illegal for a husband to rape his wife...prior to this a wife could not refuse sex and it was perfectly legal for the husband to rape her.

But thankfully forward thinking people thought better and lobbied to change it, they changed things that made your life better. They changed things that allowed you to have a better more free life.

In a few years we'll look back and shake our heads in shame at the current system that allows children to be discriminated against,

frostyjacks

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Only Catholics receive religious instruction at schools in Ireland? No other Christian denominations, no non-Christian religions?

All I proposed is a system that would make it easier for parents to exercise constitutional rights.

Have you got a problem with people exercising constitutional rights?

I have a problem with Godless busybodies thinking they can tell parents how, when and where they can have their own children educated about religion.

People died to keep the faith going in this country. Good, strong people. And for what? What for, eh? So some know-it-alls can just throw it on the scrapheap? I'm not having it.

magicbastarder

frostyjacks wrote: »

I have a problem with Godless busybodies thinking they can tell parents how, when and where they can have their own children educated about religion.

are you just trolling now? genuine question.

kylith

frostyjacks wrote: »

People died to keep the faith going in this country. Good, strong people. And for what? What for, eh? So some know-it-alls can just throw it on the scrapheap? I'm not having it.

Will having to teach their children about their religion and/or take them to mass themselves kill them?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

I have a problem with Godless busybodies thinking they can tell parents how, when and where they can have their own children educated about religion.

so non-Catholic parents (i.e. protestants, Muslims, atheists, Jews etc.) are busybodies for daring to suggest that all children shouldn't be discriminated against due to the religion regarding access to public schools?

People died to keep the faith going in this country. Good, strong people. And for what? What for, eh? So some know-it-alls can just throw it on the scrapheap? I'm not having it.

So equal access to public schools will be the funeral bell of religion? :rolleyes:

looksee

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you just trolling now? genuine question.

There's a lot of it about.

Shrap

frostyjacks wrote: »

People died to keep the faith going in this country. Good, strong people. And for what? What for, eh? So some know-it-alls can just throw it on the scrapheap? I'm not having it.

T'was down the glen one Easter morn, to a city fair rode I....
There armed lines of marching men...

Oh wait, we're a whole century on from there. *double checks* No, really. We are.

FFS. Playing the "our fore fathers died for this" is a bit of a dick-move tbh. Totally uncalled for, unnecessary and unhelpful.

The Randy Riverbeast

magicbastarder wrote: »

are you just trolling now? genuine question.

He went poe awhile ago, around the time he started approving of internment camps for Japanese and other religions.

Nodin

Mary63 wrote: »

I said it may be true cabal,I don't actually know though.

I do know when the Berkeley tragedy happened the teens went in their droves to their local churches,the entire communities met together in the local church and in the community halls and the various schools and the local clergy co ordinated the response.

I can't speak on behalf of teenagers.
.

But you just did above, or attempted to. You also seem to confuse communal grief, organised and/or spontaneous with religiosity, which is not nessecarily the same thing. We all attend funerals and the like at catholic churches but that doesn't mean a sudden belief in transubstantiation and the infallibility of the pope.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not having it.

You're not having it?!
Oh no! Say it isn't so?

Whatever will we do...

Samaris

The current state of affairs is a total perversion to what was intended.

Ireland was not intended as a religious state, but a secular one. It's not surprising that a newly empowered state that has to very suddenly and with little training figure out how to make a country made mistakes*. One of the doozies was handing over a vast amount of power over the most vulnerable and least enfranchised in society to the Roman Catholic church (children, the sick, the mentally unwell, those with no families or families that wouldn't accept them).

The concept that this should continue in a culture that has seen a vast pulling away from the Catholic Church because ...carol services are nice is somewhat ridiculous. I respect if someone wants to bring their child up in their religion, but that should not disadvantage children whose parents don't. And honestly, teaching religion in schools is a waste of everyone's time. The last figures I saw was 7% of teaching time goes on religion, rather than 10%, but that's still more than on science!

Religious education should be done at home, or in Sunday Schools or otherwise not in time that should be devoted to teaching children to read, write, learn about the world around them, figure and reason. And if people are being pushed to baptise their child into what's in theory an eternally binding vow for the sake of getting their children an education, then that's a daft situation. The response to this should really not be "Well, I bowed to it for the children, I'll teach my children to do the same and you're selfish for not doing it". Good heavens, if everyone had done that throughout time, we'd still be in the Dark Ages!

I don't blame people for -doing- it, mind. I do blame people that insist that anyone who fights against a stupid and unfair system is selfish for doing so because it'd stop them from getting to see their children do a nativity play (or they might have to work harder at getting their children into an alternative system for doing pretty plays). Honestly. Which is more selfish? Enroll them in an acting class or dancing or something.



* Not just talking out of my hat here, you see a common pattern with various African countries that all got their independence roughly the same time, and couldn't support themselves or each other in the difficult transition period.

mohawk

Mary63 wrote: »

Why should the RCC parents worry about teaching their children faith,they know their children are learning enough faith in schools,the parents are happy about this,if they weren't there would be enough children who want to colour instead to justify employing someone to mind them in the hall.

It isn't me who has a problem with our first class education system,its you eviltwin who does.I am too grateful to be living in a peaceful country with a nice school for my children to attend,Im not looking for any change at all.

If religion was that important to RCC parents then yes they would teach their children about it themselves. Most common RCC parent I know baptises their child, never brings child to mass until second class then attendance immediately stops.

First class education system. I think that depends on what you consider a successful end result. Personally I think Ireland could make some improvements.

frostyjacks

If we want our children to receive a truly well-rounded education, then it's entirely appropriate that they learn about religion along with other subjects.


To send a child out into the big, bad world without any knowledge or appreciation of the world's faiths, or worse, to encourage them to look down their nose at religious people, is silly and dangerous.

Samaris

frostyjacks wrote: »

If we want our children to receive a truly well-rounded education, then it's entirely appropriate that they learn about religion along with other subjects.


To send a child out into the big, bad world without any knowledge or appreciation of the world's faiths, or worse, to encourage them to look down their nose at religious people, is silly and dangerous.

Learn -about- as may be; it's important we understand our fellow humans. What makes them tick as well as what keeps them alive. Grand, teach them about religions. Do it in CSPE class. Or a World Cultures class with emphasis being on one's own culture.

But when you're at an age where you don't know the difference between fact and truth, you don't need someone in a position of authority making you memorise the truth as one group of people see it as a fact.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

If we want our children to receive a truly well-rounded education, then it's entirely appropriate that they learn about religion along with other subjects.


To send a child out into the big, bad world without any knowledge or appreciation of the world's faiths, or worse, to encourage them to look down their nose at religious people, is silly and dangerous .

Faiths?
I think you'll find Catholic ethos schools teach a Catholic religion class. They do not spend for example half the year teaching about the Islamic faith.

It's evident there's no real education about other Faiths from the fact that the majority of Irish people are likely unaware that jebus is a prophet in the Islamic faith.

I doubt even less know about the story for the creation of the Mormon religion and beliefs behind it.

So don't lie and claim it's about education of different Faiths when it is for no such thing, jebus doesn't like a lier.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

If we want our children to receive a truly well-rounded education, then it's entirely appropriate that they learn about religion along with other subjects.


To send a child out into the big, bad world without any knowledge or appreciation of the world's faiths, or worse, to encourage them to look down their nose at religious people, is silly and dangerous.

Something that is only coming into primary schools next year

Mary63

I think thats an excellent proposal and most people who like a religious ethos in a school will be more than happy to have their children learn about all religions.

I think most parents really don't want a secular education system so having religion taught while one or two children have gone home early is very divisive.If every pupil learns about Catholism,Islam,Athiesm throughout the year everyones interests are being catered for so no one can claim they are being discriminated against.

This is the correct approach and should be introduced as soon as possible and everyone told this is the end of the matter.

Delirium

Mary63 wrote: »

I think thats an excellent proposal and most people who like a religious ethos in a school will be more than happy to have their children learn about all religions.

I think most parents really don't want a secular education system so having religion taught while one or two children have gone home early is very divisive.If every pupil learns about Catholism,Islam,Athiesm throughout the year everyones interests are being catered for so no one can claim they are being discriminated against.

This is the correct approach and should be introduced as soon as possible and everyone told this is the end of the matter.

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that course is a secular course (i.e. treats no religion preferentially).

And until they remove the rules allowing for discrimination by religion regarding school access at the very least, then yes, people can say they are being discriminated against.

Shrap

Delirium wrote: »

Um, I hate to break it to you, but that course is a secular course (i.e. treats no religion preferentially).

And until they remove the rules allowing for discrimination by religion regarding school access at the very least, then yes, people can say they are being discriminated against.

Yeah, was just about to say that the proposed course IS secular! That's what secular education is about.

Also, to Mary - I don't see what's divisive about making sure religion classes are held either at the end or the start of given days. Wouldn't be hard to timetable for.

Delirium

Shrap wrote: »

Also, to Mary - I don't see what's divisive about making sure religion classes are held either at the end or the start of given days. Wouldn't be hard to timetable for.

As if allowing primary schools to deny non-Catholics school places isn't divisive.

Shrap

Delirium wrote: »

As if allowing primary schools to deny non-Catholics school places isn't divisive.

Yes, that's the other side of it. But what truly beggars belief is that Mary is now seemingly concerned about the division of children into religious (who stay for class) and non-religious/other religious (who go home). Sure, that's the very same division that occurs IN school currently, which is what happens when one religion is taught as fact in our national schools. She can't have it every which way.

If the patronage stays, then so does the divisiveness. That's obvious. Timetabling religious faith formation so that children who opt out can go home would be far fairer than the current system where they're left twiddling their thumbs during school hours.

looksee

frostyjacks wrote: »

If we want our children to receive a truly well-rounded education, then it's entirely appropriate that they learn about religion along with other subjects.


To send a child out into the big, bad world without any knowledge or appreciation of the world's faiths, or worse, to encourage them to look down their nose at religious people, is silly and dangerous.

No-one is arguing this at all. I think the vast majority of atheists would be perfectly happy for children to be taught about different religions, it is an essential part of coping with daily life, understanding politics, geography and history, and philosophy.

No one is talking about teaching children to look down on anyone. I don't look down on people based on their religion. I might despise or criticise them for the way they use their religion, or the way they corrupt it for their own purposes, but I am not going to look down on anyone just because they have a different belief system, or any belief system at all.

In fact, looking down on other people's different religious beliefs seems to be particularly prevalent amongst religious people.

silverharp

My kids school do it well, they split the 2 classes in the year and the Catholics have their class and everyone else has a more general class about religions but weighted towards Christianity. However there is no pressure on the kids to believe in the religious sense.