What to tell kids when they ask?

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Interesting angle but not sure about that comparison...

For starters, environment and upbringing will have a significant impact on your religious beliefs or lack of. It will have no impact on your sexual preference.

As to whether it's a choice or not is an interesting point...

If i'm a child of an atheist, who identifies as atheist, am I atheist by choice ?

Of course environment and upbringing will have an effect on a person's expression of their sexuality. It was far more common for a gay person to hide or deny their sexuality when their upbringing did not approve of it. Society behaved as though it was a 'preference' and many homosexual people went along with this idea. We haven't suddenly got more gay people, they were there all along but denying to themselves and everyone else that they were gay.

If you are a child of a religious family who identifies as religious, does that mean that you genuinely believe in god, or do you just go along with the outward show that you have been taught is 'proper'. And what you want everyone else to do is to justify your propriety by acting in the same way as you.

I was a child of Christian parents who identified as (Protestant) Christian until I was about 22 or so, and I went along with (Catholic) social practices for another 20 years or so, but I was aware from my mid teens that it was all totally hollow. I did not believe, and actually stepped down from being a Sunday School teacher as I realised I did not believe what I was teaching. I could pretend that I was religious, but I am not, it is not a choice.

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

It's all about choices Mr Pudding. You have choices. Take them or leave them I don't care. i'm only concerned with my own choices and the sacrifices needed to make them happen. What you do is totally up to you.

And with respect, discrimination in enrolment policies is a a separate topic and I'm not going to get into it here.

I do have sympathy with all sides of that discussion and as i've already said it, it will need to be tackled and some kind of compromise found but any solutions will cost money and I don't see anyone clambering to cough up for the time being.

So, is that you can't answer the questions I asked you or you won't?

MrP

looksee

Swanner, I am also very interested to know about the financial support that the church gives to schools, and the financial support that parents give, solely on the basis of that school's religious ethos, rather than concern for their children.

The Bishop Basher

Thanks Shrap and looksee...

Interesting to get other perspectives....

I was also raised Christian but was never comfortable with it. I thought I was atheist for a long time but was never comfortable with that either. Then I was humanist. In the end I ran out of labels for myself and started to just accept my beliefs for what they are but they definitely changed over time as I searched out answers and educated myself.

I'm not sure I would be so quick to say I had no choice in these matters. It took a great deal of personal effort on my part to figure it all out and i'll never be finished. That in itself is a choice and has had a direct impact on my beliefs.

There's also the problem of deathbed conversions and there are many. If these people had no choice in their atheism how come they can change their minds in the final days of life ?

So for the sake of debate, if that child is raised as an atheist by an atheist family and as with the OP has been excluded from ALL religious education or activity, are they still an atheist by design ?

If they haven't been exposed to anything other then atheism then all we've done is remove all other choices to ensure they remain atheist.

Who's to say that child wouldn't have been a christian had they been exposed to those teachings...

I'm not claiming to have any answers to these questions but it's an interesting topic..

looksee

Swanner, are your statistics for deathbed conversions from the same source as the information about Catholic funding of schools?

As to the rest.

If a child is raised as an atheist with no other information in his experience, he will most likely be atheist.

If a child is raised as religious he may remain religious, but actual evidence of church attendance, entry to the priesthood etc is demonstrating that this is less and less likely.

So on balance there is a tendency towards atheism. Children have to be taught to be religious, (specifically Catholic, in Ireland,) so it is fairly evident that there would be a great anxiety that schools remain the source of indoctrination for the church.

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

So what would you like the Government to do ?

If you live in an area that is unviable for a school of your preference you have a few options.

1. Move
2. Get enough people to move there to make it viable.
3. Any of the options I mentioned above

The government cold fix it with one sentence. "Religious classes and sacremental preparation will now take place outside of school hours". Then no-one is discriminated against on enrolment. Or maybe, since you're keen on parents taken responsibility for their choices if someone chooses to have a child and chooses to raise it in a religion they should take responsibility for their religious instruction.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

Swanner, are your statistics for deathbed conversions from the same source as the information about Catholic funding of schools?

All I meant was that if a religious community get together, set up a school to serve their community, fund that school to a significant degree through contributions and fundraising, then that religious community should have a very significant say in who attends the school, and under what ethos the school is run.

That was all and i've said twice already i'm not going down this rat hole.

It's worthy of it's own thread...

WRT to deathbed conversions, I appreciate it's anecdotal but I know they happen because my father witnessed them quite regularly. Like religious beliefs they would be to varying degrees but they happened and they weren't uncommon. So it would be unrealistic to assume that his professional experience was in any way untypical or unusual.

The actual stats we don't have as you know so we can't put a number on it but unless your saying they never happen then it's kind of moot anyway as the original point would stand regardless of the number.

looksee wrote: »

If a child is raised as an atheist with no other information in his experience, he will most likely be atheist.

If a child is raised as religious he may remain religious, but actual evidence of church attendance, entry to the priesthood etc is demonstrating that this is less and less likely.

So is that how we measure it ? Entrants to the priesthood ? Church attendance ? Are any of these reliable measures for you to determine whether others hold a religious belief or not ?

I think you've oversimplified it by a long margin and made a series of dodgy assumptions based on your own views.

looksee wrote: »

So on balance there is a tendency towards atheism. Children have to be taught to be religious, (specifically Catholic, in Ireland,) so it is fairly evident that there would be a great anxiety that schools remain the source of indoctrination for the church.

Again, I think your projecting your views on these children. Studies have shown that children have a propensity to believe in a something other. It's wired into us from an early age. I've seen it with one of my own. She demonstrated a belief from a very early age despite being born into a non religious household. People have believed in something other since the dawn of civilisation. Atheists aren't new. They've always existed. If it was as you suggest, the whole world should be atheist by now.

The Bishop Basher

MrPudding wrote: »

So, is that you can't answer the questions I asked you or you won't?

MrP

Won't.

I didn't reply because it was a bit of a ramble and as I said a few times now, i'm not getting into the discrimination debate.

If you have questions aside from that and you put them succinctly, minus the personal remarks, i'd be happy to answer.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

The government cold fix it with one sentence. "Religious classes and sacremental preparation will now take place outside of school hours". Then no-one is discriminated against on enrolment.

They can't do that kylith, as faith formation is part of the curriculum in schools which are under religious patronage. Religion classes and sacramental preparation must take place within school hours.

Or maybe, since you're keen on parents taken responsibility for their choices if someone chooses to have a child and chooses to raise it in a religion they should take responsibility for their religious instruction.

Parents already do that though by enrolling their children in schools which share their religious ethos. I take responsibility for my child's religious instruction both in, and outside school hours. I had no interest in sending my child to an ET school that's actually a lot closer than the RC school he attends now. I don't just take responsibility for my child's religious instruction, but also his education.

I can see why people here object to religious indoctrination in schools for their children, but whenever I read suggestions that question my parenting because I choose to send my child to a school with a religious ethos, well, I bite my lip for the most part. I understand where they're coming from, but they have one idea of what they call a community, I have another. That's all it is.

I'm all for Government introducing secular education, but it must be exactly that - no interference with schools with a religious ethos, and setting up more schools with no religious ethos.

Samaris

People are, I would assume, naturally agnostic. Raised without a faith, and without a lack of it either, it would just be totally irrelevant. But if they felt the need for something more, were searching for something, they'd find faith, or find they don't have it, and become religious or atheist (or just stay uninterested in the whole thing) as they grow up.

Children shouldn't be indoctrinated either way, faith should be a personal thing.

TheQuietFella

Samaris wrote: »

Children shouldn't be indoctrinated either way, faith should be a personal thing.

What form of indoctrination takes place at schools?

I was in school for the best part of 14 years and never experienced any form

of indoctrination! Between all the subjects being taught in and outside of

schools you would wonder where they would get the time for it!

frostyjacks

Samaris wrote: »

People are, I would assume, naturally agnostic. Raised without a faith, and without a lack of it either, it would just be totally irrelevant. But if they felt the need for something more, were searching for something, they'd find faith, or find they don't have it, and become religious or atheist (or just stay uninterested in the whole thing) as they grow up.

Children shouldn't be indoctrinated either way, faith should be a personal thing.

Faith already is a personal thing. It's also communal, part of the reason parents send their children to faith schools. I'd hate to live in a society where everyone has to keep their beliefs and opinions locked away, lest someone might be offended.

Back to the OP, the child in question isn't participating in religious education class. She's picking up faith off her own bat. Humans are naturally curious about where we came from, who shaped the world we live in. All roads lead to Rome.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Faith already is a personal thing. It's also communal, part of the reason parents send their children to faith schools. I'd hate to live in a society where everyone has to keep their beliefs and opinions locked away, lest someone might be offended.

Back to the OP, the child in question isn't participating in religious education class. She's picking up faith off her own bat. Humans are naturally curious about where we came from, who shaped the world we live in. All roads lead to Rome.

That's only cause she's hearing one side of the story. If all faiths were taught equally she might find herself on the road to something else entirely.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

That's only cause she's hearing one side of the story. If all faiths were taught equally she might find herself on the road to something else entirely.

Well, she's living in a Christian country, steeped in a proud culture and tradition. It's to be expected a little of that sparkle will rub off on people.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, she's living in a Christian country, steeped in a proud culture and tradition. It's to be expected a little of that sparkle will rub off on people.

Not unless you want it to. My six year old thinks Jesus is a swear word and knows nothing about religion or faith. He's not exposed to it. Little kids don't need to be.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The use of this phrase always makes me laugh more than it should, especially when it's coming from someone I assume is well-educated, middle-class and white.

Is that not a racist assumption though? Do you assume a black person or a "lower" class person couldn't write such eloquent prose?

Swanner wrote: »

No but my parents chose to relocate to an area that had a good CoI national school. It was a priority for them.

I thought you said your father was the CoI vicar. His child was guaranteed a first priority place in the local parish school, no matter where he went. Even if the school had been oversubscribed, some unfortunate local of "mixed marriage" or perhaps atheist pedigree, or somehow lacking in full CoI credentials, would have been bumped off the list to make way for you to get a place.

Swanner wrote: »

Ah I see. You're one of these people that identifies a problem and then sits and moans about said problem wishing it would resolve itself. Doesn't happen. Especially with Governments. You want to fix things go do it. Start lobbying, start getting groups together, off the top of my head you could set up a resource to help guide people who want to build a secular school in their area. Lots of opportunity, lots of challenges and lots of rewards should you chose that path.

The other option as you know, is to continue to sit and whine that the government won't listen to you and refuses to build a school that caters for you and your childs beliefs. Good luck with that. You'll be still disappointed and whining 20 years from now.

That's a bit rich coming from you. You previously argued that when the govt. built a brand new secondary school in Greystones recently, it was perfectly fine for the CoI to gain control of it, give themselves priority admission, and use it as a vehicle to proselytize to a community in which they are only a minority.
Your experience is not in building new schools or fundraising for them. Your experience is of hijacking them from the public purse. Converting a public facility so that it serves the interest of your private interest group.
And no amount of "whatabout the catholics, shur they have even more schools" can cover that up.
Now I realise you are not the worst, in that you seem at least capable of seeing the injustice of it, but your whataboutery is only a fig leaf of an excuse. You use it while you make a grab at the greasy till yourself.

You play the martyr, but as Hotblack pointed out, in reality you have enjoyed privilege.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can't do that kylith, as faith formation is part of the curriculum in schools which are under religious patronage. Religion classes and sacramental preparation must take place within school hours.

The curriculum is not set in stone and can be changed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Parents already do that though by enrolling their children in schools which share their religious ethos.

I disagree. Putting your child in a Catholic school and leaving it at that is not taking responsibility for their religious education, it is abdicating responsibility to the school. You take a hand in your child's religious upbringing and good for you. The majority of people do not, attending mass only for their child's baptism, communion and confirmation. Maaaaaybe Christmas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm all for Government introducing secular education, but it must be exactly that - no interference with schools with a religious ethos, and setting up more schools with no religious ethos.

I would agree if schools with a religious ethos were not funded by the state, but currently they are. The state builds the schools, the state funds the schools, the state pays the wages. Ergo, the state gets a say. If the RCC, the CoI, the Muslims, and the rest want to build the schools and pay the bills themselves then they can teach as much religion as they want.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

Not unless you want it to. My six year old thinks Jesus is a swear word and knows nothing about religion or faith. He's not exposed to it. Little kids don't need to be.

So he didn't celebrate Christmas then?

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Is that not a racist assumption though? Do you assume a black person or a "lower" class person couldn't write such eloquent prose?

I don't think it's a racist assumption at all, given that a high proportion of people who identify as atheist in Western society are indeed well educated, middle-class, and indeed white. It wasn't particularly the prose I was referring to, but the sentiment expressed.

Although there are people who identify as atheist who are black, they aren't generally well educated or middle class.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

I thought you said your father was the CoI vicar. His child was guaranteed a first priority place in the local parish school, no matter where he went. Even if the school had been oversubscribed, some unfortunate local of "mixed marriage" or perhaps atheist pedigree, or somehow lacking in full CoI credentials, would have been bumped off the list to make way for you to get a place..

I said they moved to be near a good CoI national school. It was important to them. I never suggested anything about places.

recedite wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from you. You previously argued that when the govt. built a brand new secondary school in Greystones recently, it was perfectly fine for the CoI to gain control of it, give themselves priority admission, and use it as a vehicle to proselytize to a community in which they are only a minority.
Your experience is not in building new schools or fundraising for them. Your experience is of hijacking them from the public purse. Converting a public facility so that it serves the interest of your private interest group.
And no amount of "whatabout the catholics, shur they have even more schools" can cover that up.
Now I realise you are not the worst, in that you seem at least capable of seeing the injustice of it, but your whataboutery is only a fig leaf of an excuse. You use it while you make a grab at the greasy till yourself.

You play the martyr, but as Hotblack pointed out, in reality you have enjoyed privilege.

Jesus what is it with this privilege ? I wish someone had told me at the time. Travelling 4 hours a day on public transport sure didn't feel like a privilege. All my catholic mates, and some protestant ones got to walk to and from school together. They had a better quality of life and a much shorter day. Surely if anyone was privileged they were. Not that I ever though about it that way.

Look recedite you're clearly very angry about this and I understand why. I was gobsmacked when the admissions policy for TC was released and I'm still gobsmacked by it today. I think there have been major mistakes made not just in relation to admission for those of other faiths and none but for CoI admission too and I've said so many times.

But my position is not as simple as you're making it out to be. I have huge sympathy with your point of view.

I just see it from all the other sides too.

TheQuietFella

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I have a kid in her first year in a catholic primary school. She has been opted out of religion class

Just reading again your first post and you have some serious issues that

need to be addressed. You made the decision to reduce her education and

for her to learn something a little different! You're a sad excuse!

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

I said they moved to be near a good CoI national school. It was important to them. I never suggested anything about places.

You didn't mention it because the idea of getting a place in the primary school was never even an issue for your parents. That in itself is a privilege.

If you grew up in Greystones, there were 2 CoI primary schools around, and I think 4 or 5 RC primary schools. So a choice of two different types of religious indoctrination, for everyone. Your family were privileged that one of these suited them.

There was only one secondary school, of RC ethos. At this point your luck ran out. Instead of attending the RC school you travelled for many hours every day to escape the indoctrination. You have my sympathy.

Nowadays there are two secondary schools. One CoI and one RC. So now your tribe has privileges in both primary and secondary education. Hooray.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

You didn't mention it because the idea of getting a place in the primary school was never even an issue for your parents. That in itself is a privilege.

If you grew up in Greystones, there were 2 CoI primary schools around, and I think 4 or 5 RC primary schools. So a choice of two different types of religious indoctrination, for everyone. Your family were privileged that one of these suited them.

There was only one secondary school, of RC ethos. At this point your luck ran out. Instead of attending the RC school you travelled for many hours every day to escape the indoctrination. You have my sympathy.

Nowadays there are two secondary schools. One CoI and one RC. So now your tribe has privileges in both primary and secondary education. Hooray.

Yes I remember someone telling me that a bunch of derogatory posts about me were removed form that thread at the time rattling on and on about privilege. I wonder who that might have been ??

Your so blinkered by your anger that you can't even see that I'm not arguing with you. Your arguments are all valid, you just make them in such an angry way that the message gets lost.

I believe everyone should have a right to an education in their chosen faith or none. The reality of delivering that is not so easy but things are changing slowly. And I hope some day all "tribes" as you call them achieve equal access across both levels of education. But we'll get there by working together. Your finger wagging and blame game does nothing to achieve solutions.

Just a point to note btw, it's not my tribe. I don't belong to any tribes and haven't since I was a young lad. Nor have I any link whatsoever to the school you mention. So have all the goes you like but I'm not your enemy here.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

So he didn't celebrate Christmas then?

Course we did.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

because the person who uses it to my face has no idea about me and cannot see their own "privileges".

A post in response to someone else is "to your face" ? It was nothing to do with you at all.

The privilege in question is the favouritism shown towards CoI schools by the state ever since its foundation. I wouldn't begrudge that if other minorities got the same. But what is really and urgently needed is a state education system inclusive of all. Segregating kids from junior infants onwards on the basis of gender and religion is just not on in the 21st century. It is damaging to children and damaging to communities and damaging to inclusion of minorities and immigrants (and even migrants within Ireland - ETs enrolment policies discriminate against them.)

Swanner wrote: »

So what would you like the Government to do ?

Step 1 - as I already said, end discrimination in schools it funds.

Step 2 - and this is where the real pain lies - force through divestment everywhere there is more than 1 Catholic school in an area. Abolish single-sex schools where necessary to facilitate this.


Now for the next bit - please remember we've had these 'solutions' put forward dozens of times before and repetition doesn't improve them.

If you live in an area that is unviable for a school of your preference you have a few options.

1. Move

Negative equity, tracker mortgage, elderly parents nearby

2. Get enough people to move there to make it viable.

How does anyone "get" people to move anywhere? Nonsense. Why should they uproot themselves any more than I should?

3. Any of the options I mentioned above

In other words, no one is going to come and sort it for you.

Step 1 - ban discrimination in itself would go a long way towards making our system fairer.

Best of luck with it. I don't have an issue with removing discrimination in enrolment as long as the Government or somebody else takes over the funding currently provided by the church, the parents and the wider community.

Churches do not provide any funding. Commonly held myth. Parents of ET kids are in the same position currently with regard to fundraising etc. as parents anywhere else.

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

I believe everyone should have a right to an education in their chosen faith or none. The reality of delivering that is not so easy..

Being educated through the ethos of your personal religion is not a right, it is a privilege. As such, it should be reserved for those who can pay for that privilege. Publicly funded schools on the other hand should be for all members of the public.

If you stop for a second to think about how many versions of religion, non-religion, spirituality etc are out there, then it is obvious that the state can never fund a separate school for each and every one. All it can do is privilege one or two sections of society.
If it funds schools for the two largest majorities, it fails the rest of society.
That breeds resentment and anger.
If it funds religiously neutral schools (ie secular) it caters for everyone.

You asked questions on this thread about what people meant by privilege, but you didn't like the honest answers. I don't think any of my posts were ever deleted from that other thread. I'm not angry with you personally; I wish you well. When I see how that fantastic new school, which my taxes helped to pay for, was hijacked by a private interest group it does make me angry. To me, its the same as seeing a county councillor divert public money into his own pocket.

eviltwin

Swanner wrote: »

Yes I remember someone telling me that a bunch of derogatory posts about me were removed form that thread at the time rattling on and on about privilege. I wonder who that might have been ??

Your so blinkered by your anger that you can't even see that I'm not arguing with you. Your arguments are all valid, you just make them in such an angry way that the message gets lost.

I believe everyone should have a right to an education in their chosen faith or none. The reality of delivering that is not so easy but things are changing slowly. And I hope some day all "tribes" as you call them achieve equal access across both levels of education. But we'll get there by working together. Your finger wagging and blame game does nothing to achieve solutions.

Just a point to note btw, it's not my tribe. I don't belong to any tribes and haven't since I was a young lad. Nor have I any link whatsoever to the school you mention. So have all the goes you like but I'm not your enemy here.

Can the church's not do that? It seems to work well for kids going to educate together schools

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A post in response to someone else is "to your face" ? It was nothing to do with you at all.

I was referring to the expression and my experience of people offline who in my experience tend to use that expression. I was giving an explanation why I find it an utterly meaningless expression is all.

The privilege in question is the favouritism shown towards CoI schools by the state ever since its foundation. I wouldn't begrudge that if other minorities got the same. But what is really and urgently needed is a state education system inclusive of all. Segregating kids from junior infants onwards on the basis of gender and religion is just not on in the 21st century. It is damaging to children and damaging to communities and damaging to inclusion of minorities and immigrants (and even migrants within Ireland - ETs enrolment policies discriminate against them.)

I don't agree with that at all. I think it's very much dependent upon context. By that standard, people who withdraw their children from religion classes practicing self-segregation are "damaging" their children. I don't think parents would agree with that assessment of their actions.

Secondly - what community are you referring to exactly? Physical proximity to a school, or religious communities?

Thirdly - there are many different immigrant communities which have no interest in integrating with other communities and would rather stick to their own people within their own culture and so on that would rather send their children to schools which respect their culture and way of life.

You can have your own ideas on what "isn't on" in the 21st century, and what is "damaging" to children and all the rest of it, but you'll likely come up against resistance if you fail to acknowledge the needs and culture of parents who don't share your utopian idealism because they have their own ideas about what is best for their children.

Providing secular State schools in areas that there is a demand for them is the best the Government can do.

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

Won't.

I didn't reply because it was a bit of a ramble and as I said a few times now, i'm not getting into the discrimination debate.

If you have questions aside from that and you put them succinctly, minus the personal remarks, i'd be happy to answer.

Ok. So can you provide details on the funding the church, the community and the parent provide for school?

MrP

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

Being educated through the ethos of your personal religion is not a right, it is a privilege. As such, it should be reserved for those who can pay for that privilege. Publicly funded schools on the other hand should be for all members of the public.

If you stop for a second to think about how many versions of religion, non-religion, spirituality etc are out there, then it is obvious that the state can never fund a separate school for each and every one. All it can do is privilege one or two sections of society.
If it funds schools for the two largest majorities, it fails the rest of society.
That breeds resentment and anger.
If it funds religiously neutral schools (ie secular) it caters for everyone.

You asked questions on this thread about what people meant by privilege, but you didn't like the honest answers. I don't think any of my posts were ever deleted from that other thread. I'm not angry with you personally; I wish you well. When I see how that fantastic new school, which my taxes helped to pay for, was hijacked by a private interest group it does make me angry. To me, its the same as seeing a county councillor divert public money into his own pocket.

Ok so we fundamentally disagree on what an education utopia would look like.

I believe that everyone in theory should have access to education delivered through the ethos of their faith should they choose that.

I also believe people should have access to secular schools should that be their choice.

But we also have to be realistic and that means accepting that this isn't possible for all.

At that point, for me, It comes down to
making choices as a parent. If it's important enough to you, you'll find a way.

You also seem to forget that minorities pay their taxes too. As do atheists and majority religions.

So do you think it's fair that under your proposal, atheists would be entitled to a free state secular education while all other beliefs must either suck it up or pay up while contributing to that secular state school through their taxes ? Priviledge indeed..

Surely that's exactly the kind of system you have such a problem with right now or is it ok when atheist get to call it ?

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Being educated through the ethos of your personal religion is not a right, it is a privilege. As such, it should be reserved for those who can pay for that privilege. Publicly funded schools on the other hand should be for all members of the public.

You're wrong there.

This is the full text of Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland:

"42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."

Bold emphasis my own. These are fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution, not "privileges" as you might like to call them.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're wrong there.





Bold emphasis my own. These are fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution, not "privileges" as you might like to call them.

Not to rain on the constitution but that little nugget comes from the same place that time that keeps references to women in the home there.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was referring to the expression and my experience of people offline who in my experience tend to use that expression. I was giving an explanation why I find it an utterly meaningless expression is all.

It gets some people's backs up, yes, and it's an expression I never normally use, but entirely appropriate in this case.

I don't agree with that at all. I think it's very much dependent upon context. By that standard, people who withdraw their children from religion classes practicing self-segregation are "damaging" their children. I don't think parents would agree with that assessment of their actions.

I dunno. It's not an easy decision to make to have to mark out your child as different to all the others. In the case of our two we haven't yet done that. We bloody well will before bible studies start in 5th class though. Most of the Hindu, Muslim etc. kids go along for the weekly church visit (not really a service). It's not the same as sacraments or class masses in an RC school.

Secondly - what community are you referring to exactly? Physical proximity to a school, or religious communities?

Community is all the people who live in an area - no-one should feel excluded from this.

A religious community is a group of people who choose to meet and worship - which is perfectly fine - where we went wrong in Ireland was assuming that this type of community is the same thing as "the" community and anyone who is non-RC or whatever is excluded.

Thirdly - there are many different immigrant communities which have no interest in integrating with other communities and would rather stick to their own people within their own culture and so on that would rather send their children to schools which respect their culture and way of life.

Yes. And I believe the state should oppose such self-segregation as it is extremely detrimental to society as a whole.

You can have your own ideas on what "isn't on" in the 21st century, and what is "damaging" to children and all the rest of it, but you'll likely come up against resistance if you fail to acknowledge the needs and culture of parents who don't share your utopian idealism because they have their own ideas about what is best for their children.

There was a time when any injustice which has been eradicated was seen as a utopian dream.

Providing secular State schools in areas that there is a demand for them is the best the Government can do.

So again we're back to having to travel or move to access a non-discriminatory school? Can you not see how that is wrong?
Why do the rights of religious (or, in Ireland, more likely nominally religious) parents get to trump everyone else? Why do they get what they want on their doorstep and everyone else has to like it or lump it? For state services we all pay for? It's simply indefensible.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So again we're back to having to travel or move to access a non-discriminatory school? Can you not see how that is wrong?

Of course I can see how it's wrong, and it's unfair on some parents and all the rest of it, I'm not going to be obtuse about it. I do see how it's unfair on parents and children who would likely have to travel great distances for their children to have access to education congruent with their values.

I think this is a difficulty that won't be resolved easily as the State does not have a bottomless pit of money, and so it has to look at the census figures and make projections based on that. That inevitably means that some parents are going to lose out.

Why do the rights of religious (or, in Ireland, more likely nominally religious) parents get to trump everyone else?

Because they are in the majority? I don't think tbh the idea is to "trump" minorities. The State is only obliged to take reasonable steps to provide for the education of minorities, and logistics will play a part in that. There's no point in providing a non-denom school in an area where there may likely be only three students attending in 10 years, and then no students after that. It would just make no sense, a complete waste of money and other resources.

Why do they get what they want on their doorstep and everyone else has to like it or lump it? For state services we all pay for? It's simply indefensible.

We all pay for State services, but the State outsources provision of those services through the patronage system, and the fact is that because the vast majority of people in this country identify as RC, they're going to get the largest share of funding.

It's easily defensible as parents choose to send their children to religious ethos schools, and the State has to provide funds for the education of those children in that school.

The "I pay my tax" argument doesn't really wash tbh, we all pay taxes, including people who aren't parents, who are paying taxes to educate other people's children. They gain nothing from State provisioned services. Would you agree that it is unfair on those people to have to pay taxes to educate other peoples children?

I would, but I understand that is how a society functions. It isn't always going to be fair, and there will always be someone will feel they are being hard done by.

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

I believe that everyone in theory should have access to education delivered through the ethos of their faith should they choose that.

I also believe people should have access to secular schools should that be their choice.

But we also have to be realistic and that means accepting that this isn't possible for all.

At that point, for me, It comes down to
making choices as a parent. If it's important enough to you, you'll find a way.

Agreed. Would you not agree that given that it is not feasible for the state to provide individual schools for every minority religion that a secular education system, with various faiths providing faith formation via Sunday schools (for example), is the most efficient use of public funds?

The Bishop Basher

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So again we're back to having to travel or move to access a non-discriminatory school? Can you not see how that is wrong?
Why do the rights of religious (or, in Ireland, more likely nominally religious) parents get to trump everyone else? Why do they get what they want on their doorstep and everyone else has to like it or lump it? For state services we all pay for? It's simply indefensible.

Because they are the majority and they command the corridors that matter. The Church still has considerable influence and is a force to be reckoned with at election time. We are a long long way from being a secular state.

The Bishop Basher

kylith wrote: »

Agreed. Would you not agree that given that it is not feasible for the state to provide individual schools for every minority religion that a secular education system, with various faiths providing faith formation via Sunday schools (for example), is the most efficient use of public funds?

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

otpmb

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools.

Why? Would Sunday schools not be as good as say a CoI school at providing complete faith formation for children?

eviltwin

Swanner wrote: »

Because they are the majority and they command the corridors that matter. The Church still has considerable influence and is a force to be reckoned with at election time. We are a long long way from being a secular state.

All the more reason to loosen their strings. It's not like they speak for anything other than a minority of Catholics anyway.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

This is not about atheists, or not just atheists. If you add together all the people who are non-Catholics, non-believers, or who would prefer a secular state (regardless of their religious beliefs, and there are Catholics who would like a secular state) you have a considerable number. Add in all those people who really don't give a damn about religion in schools, or who are thinking backwards - schools are religious therefore we pretend to be to get our children into them - and you have a whole lot more.

A secular school is not an anti-religious school, it is not an atheist school, it is simply a place where children can learn academic subjects, practical skills, and moral values but without the overlay of one religion's dogma. It is nothing to be afraid of.

Further, children would have the opportunity to learn their own religious practices in the heart of their family, rather than the classroom, parents would have the right to guide their children in their faith.

Isn't it very odd that the Catholic Church denounced the state health scheme that was proposed by Noel Browne to give children a better chance of life, on the basis that it took responsibility for children away from the family. Well here you have the opportunity to put responsibility for children's religious education back in the control of parents.

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

But surely churches would supply the faith formation Sunday schools free of charge? That way everyone gets the same, free, schooling and gets their religion supplied by their church of choice. No segregation, children of all faiths play together, all religions are taught about in schools, and the actual 'our god is best' is taken care of separately. What's not to like?

As it stands non Catholic, for example, kids just get given colouring to do, which does them no good, and they are still exposed to Catholicism due to being in the classroom while RE is taking place.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

But surely churches would supply the faith formation Sunday schools free of charge? That way everyone gets the same, free, schooling and gets their religion supplied by their church of choice. No segregation, children of all faiths play together, all religions are taught about in schools, and the actual 'our god is best' is taken care of separately. What's not to like?

As it stands non Catholic, for example, kids just get given colouring to do, which does them no good, and they are still exposed to Catholicism due to being in the classroom while RE is taking place.

The problem with the above suggestion is quite simple - the vast majority of parents simply don't want it.

They're quite content with the status quo. I've even met with one parent who told me straight out they're not religious themselves, but they want their child to make their confirmation. I've met other parents who nearly caused war one year because they felt their children weren't properly prepared for confirmation. They want the religious ethos to remain in the school.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think this is a difficulty that won't be resolved easily as the State does not have a bottomless pit of money, and so it has to look at the census figures and make projections based on that. That inevitably means that some parents are going to lose out.

There is no need whatsoever to set up any additional schools or spend any more money to solve this problem.

Because they are in the majority? I don't think tbh the idea is to "trump" minorities. The State is only obliged to take reasonable steps to provide for the education of minorities, and logistics will play a part in that. There's no point in providing a non-denom school in an area where there may likely be only three students attending in 10 years, and then no students after that. It would just make no sense, a complete waste of money and other resources.

Excuse me, but the state is obliged to provide for primary education for every child. They currently don't do this on an equal basis, as schools the state funds are permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Sure, every child finds a place somewhere, eventually but it's the children of non-catholics who are routinely inconvenienced - at best.
If you've been reading and understanding my posts you'd know that the last thing I want is a non-denom school set up for a handful of pupils. I don't want kids to be segregated on the basis of religion or non-religion at all.

We all pay for State services, but the State outsources provision of those services through the patronage system,

Exactly, it abdicates responsibility for delivery of the services it (or rather we) pays for. It has effectively gifted state funds and lands over to unaccountable, unelected religious bodies to use for their own benefit.

and the fact is that because the vast majority of people in this country identify as RC, they're going to get the largest share of funding.

It's not about shares of funding. It's about a system that provides for everyone and excludes no-one.

It's easily defensible as parents choose to send their children to religious ethos schools, and the State has to provide funds for the education of those children in that school.

No it's not. It's not a 'choice' when parents enrol their kids in the default option, or perhaps the only option. It's a historical legacy and one which is discriminatory and damaging.

The "I pay my tax" argument doesn't really wash tbh, we all pay taxes, including people who aren't parents, who are paying taxes to educate other people's children. They gain nothing from State provisioned services. Would you agree that it is unfair on those people to have to pay taxes to educate other peoples children?

That's like saying I'm not sick, why am I paying for hospitals.
Society as a whole benefits from having children educated to a good standard.
Society does not benefit however from pandering to religions' desires to segregate children on sectarian grounds and indoctrinate them at taxpayers' expense and discriminate against everyone not in the 'big 2' religions.

I would, but I understand that is how a society functions. It isn't always going to be fair, and there will always be someone will feel they are being hard done by.

It's no more defensible to have hospitals operating on catholics first than it is to have schools enrolling catholics first.

Samaris

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

But it's okay to subsidise Catholic schools?

Why should the state foment an overtly religious atmosphere in the country? Any religion, that is. Religion is not a state matter, or shouldn't be. Religions are international organisations, they have nothing to do with national boundaries and shouldn't be favoured or distinguished between in the eyes of the State. A school doesn't have to be "atheist" either, just not get involved. Parents should see to their children's religious education, not wasting a lot of school time on religious observance (or colouring).

Schools should be State schools, as in supported by the state, not an international order. Let them prepare children for religious ceremonies in services or groups that the kids are in by will, not because they're obligated to be.

The Bishop Basher

Samaris wrote: »

But it's okay to subsidise Catholic schools?..

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be ok ?

Samaris wrote: »

Why should the state foment an overtly religious atmosphere in the country? Any religion, that is. Religion is not a state matter, or shouldn't be. Religions are international organisations, they have nothing to do with national boundaries and shouldn't be favoured or distinguished between in the eyes of the State. A school doesn't have to be "atheist" either, just not get involved. Parents should see to their children's religious education, not wasting a lot of school time on religious observance (or colouring)..

Because over 80% of the population still
Identify as Roman Catholic and want it to remain as is. We may not like that number but it's the reality. And you may feel that many of them are lapsed or just don't care about religion, you may well be correct, but we have no way to quantify it so its moot.

Samaris wrote: »

ButSchools should be State schools, as in supported by the state, not an international order. Let them prepare children for religious ceremonies in services or groups that the kids are in by will, not because they're obligated to be.

In your opinion.... Unfortunately the majority of parents disagree.

And a couple of posters now have tried to make the point that many people who identify as RC actually never darken the door of a church. But as religion is such a personal thing, it's impossible to quantify how serious anyone is about their own beliefs. Equally, no one can tell them they're not serious about it.

And then you have people like me who are not religious but also want to send their kids to a faith school. We make significant sacrifices so both of ours can attend a CoI secondary outside of the local area. Both made their communion, confirmation and confessions. (My wife is a lapsed Roman Catholic so they had an RC influence too.) One just went through the motions and one of them has had a faith for as long as she's been able to speak. Bottom line is they make their own choices on religion without any interference from me or my wife and I have no issue whatsoever supporting them in their choices even when they conflict with my own beliefs.

It amazes me how many atheists feel so threatened by religion that they have to censor it out of their children's lives altogether. I'm happy to give my children a broad knowledge of all religion and none and let them decide for themselves. I have zero investment in ensuring they end up with similar beliefs to me when they grow up. That would just be another form of indoctrination as far as I'm concerned and I'd actually feel like I failed if they did. I want them to question everything for themselves and come to their own conclusions and that can only be possible when they've been presented with ALL the facts.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with the above suggestion is quite simple - the vast majority of parents simply don't want it.

Polls show that 40% are in favour of secular schools. I'd hardly call that a tiny minority. Add in the 'don't care's and I think it'd go over 50%.

They're happy with the status quo because they get to have the big days out for communion and confirmation without having to lift a finger except to buy a new outfit for he child. If the sacraments are important to them surely they'd have no problem with bringing the child to a church run system outside of school hours.

MrPudding

Any time you are ready Swanner.

MrP

looksee wrote: »

Swanner, I am also very interested to know about the financial support that the church gives to schools, and the financial support that parents give, solely on the basis of that school's religious ethos, rather than concern for their children.

MrPudding wrote: »

Ok. So can you provide details on the funding the church, the community and the parent provide for school?

MrP

looksee

It amazes me how many atheists feel so threatened by religion that they have to censor it out of their children's lives altogether

It has already been said a number of times that non-religious people (well, several of the people posting here) have no objection to children being taught about religions, in fact it is an essential part of understanding the society we live in. What we do not want is the indoctrination that is being given at the moment, two very different things.

The Bishop Basher

MrPudding wrote: »

Any time you are ready Swanner.

MrP

I hope my previous answer will suffice. If not, I hope you're a patient man...

Swanner wrote: »

All I meant was that if a religious community get together, set up a school to serve their community, fund that school to a significant degree through contributions and fundraising, then that religious community should have a very significant say in who attends the school, and under what ethos the school is run.

That was all and i've said twice already i'm not going down this rat hole.

It's worthy of it's own thread...

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

I hope my previous answer will suffice. If not, I hope you're a patient man...

Ah, forgive me, that is so completely not an explanation of what you stated that I actually missed it.

If I might summarise, when you originally tried to imply that the churches, as well as the communities and parents contributed significant, or at least necessary (I am guessing you think the sums involved are necessary as you asked where alternative funding would come from), you were basically making it up? Would that be about right? You do understand that the church, the community and parents contributions make up a fraction of a fraction of the funding for state schools? You do know how schools are funded don't you? From what I can see either you don't, in which case you should try to educate yourself, or you are trying to dishonestly make an argument that might seem reasonable to someone that doesn't know how schools are funded.

So which is it, you don't know how schools are funded or you are intentionally trying to use a dishonest argument?

MrP