What to tell kids when they ask?

Samaris

...Also, and I know it's off-topic, but good heavens, atheism and ID?

'"I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

Point is...If we don't challenge our beliefs we don't grow and raising a child as an atheist with a total ban on any religious knowledge is not challenging your beliefs.

Why do visitors to this forum continue to put forward this tripe/trope?

It's indoctrination plain and simple.

It's lack of indoctrination, plain and simple.

Likewise you're absolutely within your right to indoctrinate your children into atheism or any other belief / non belief system you choose.

How do you indoctrinate children into atheism? There is no doctrine. Atheism is what happens when you cease indoctrination.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

And BTW I did notice the false dichotomy you threw in there (cautioning against switching to another unfair system) You intended that fallacy to support your basic point that we should accept the status quo.

I do not believe anyone should ever accept the status quo and i've never stated otherwise despite your insistence that I have...

Unless of course they're ok with it, which is kinda obvious.. Que some jibe about privilege :rolleyes:

I think sometimes we have to accept it as a current reality but still, that in no way assumes it can't be changed.

I would genuinely welcome change but not the change you want which enforces your minority views on the current majority by only offering a secular education. Why should "secular" be the default ? Because you want it ? Whether you like it or not, you are a minority and until that changes, you have no option other then to accept it as a reality

But accepting a current reality doesn't mean you can't work for something better. Thing is though, if you want it, you have to go get it. No one else is going to do it for you. The majority have no incentive to look for change so you need to push for it. You have numbers. Start lobbying TD's, start a forum, get people talking, start a petition etc. etc.

If you're successful and in 50 years, an atheist majority put a secular system in place, the faith based minority will have no choice but to accept it. That's democracy. It works both ways.

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's lack of indoctrination, plain and simple.

How do you indoctrinate children into atheism? There is no doctrine. Atheism is what happens when you cease indoctrination.

Yes. i'm aware of that. We really need a word specifically for this.

But semantics aside...

I see no difference between someone removing all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education, and a person of faith removing all reference to other faiths and none from a child's upbringing and education. The motive is exactly the same, as is the outcome.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. i'm aware of that. We really need a word specifically for this.

But semantics aside...

I see no difference between someone removing all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education, and a person of faith removing all reference to other faiths and none from a child's upbringing and education. The motive is exactly the same, as is the outcome.

You are doing it again. No-one is proposing to remove 'all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education' but it suits you to keep saying it.

And I have seen and experienced efforts of 'people of faith' trying to excise all reference to other faiths and none from children's education. I omit reference to upbringing as that is the parents responsibility and I cannot generalise about it.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

You are doing it again. No-one is proposing to remove 'all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education' but it suits you to keep saying it.

The OP was...

Kenny Bania wrote: »

They've never been to a church and they don't take part in religion classes. And I'm actively curbing any small mentions of it that get through via osmosis in class. They don't even know what a priest is.

And I thought that was the context of the thread.. I've no problem with a kid getting a secular education where they've been taught about world religions from an historical perspective and where the information is presented in an appropriate way distinguishing between fact and opinion or belief. That sounds to me like a balanced education.

looksee wrote: »

And I have seen and experienced efforts of 'people of faith' trying to excise all reference to other faiths and none from children's education.

So have I. I wasn't suggesting they didn't. That was my point. they do it all the time and it's exactly the same thing. While it's absolutely their right should they choose to it's indoctrination in all but name.

looksee wrote: »

I omit reference to upbringing as that is the parents responsibility and I cannot generalise about it.

Fair point.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

The OP was...

They've never been to a church and they don't take part in religion classes. And I'm actively curbing any small mentions of it that get through via osmosis in class. They don't even know what a priest is.

And I thought that was the context of the thread.. I've no problem with a kid getting a secular education where they've been taught about world religions from an historical perspective and where the information is presented in an appropriate way distinguishing between fact and opinion or belief. That sounds to me like a balanced education.

I think if you read the OP's post he was talking about the specific RC dogma that is taught in class She does not do the religion book, god made all of us . The only religion book at the moment is the RC faith book, and a general lesson on world religions would not include the phrase 'god made us all'.

If he is indeed intending to entirely excise all mention of religion, even information about world religions then I agree with you, but I do not think that is the case.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

I think if you read the OP's post he was talking about the specific RC dogma that is taught in class She does not do the religion book, god made all of us . The only religion book at the moment is the RC faith book, and a general lesson on world religions would not include the phrase 'god made us all'.

If he is indeed intending to entirely excise all mention of religion, even information about world religions then I agree with you, but I do not think that is the case.

Pretty much everyone on the "atheist" side is calling for, as far as I can see, the studying of religions. At this stage it can only be assumed the other side n this debate are being wilfully ignorant.

MrP

DK man

Op - how do you know that 'over 80% of the families are non practicing Catholics? Catholics are not a homogenous bunch some go to mass every day and others weekly and some occasional and others never but still manage to hold onto their Christian faith.

Religion lessons involve art music drama geography history politics conflict resolution - and also a framework to discuss ethical questions. Christianity is so embedded in world history.

I think you can go along as a casual observer and still decide or live outside the realms of faith.... If you believe that there is nothing behind Christianity then whatever osmosis occurs can't be harmful.

Just as many who are brought up Christian choose to reject it many who are brought up without religion find it along the way... I think you have said it yourself about the difficulty of telling a child we come from fragments of stars say also about the position you are holding!

Teach your child your athesism but also don't try to put a shield around them to the realities of the world around them

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

I think if you read the OP's post he was talking about the specific RC dogma that is taught in class She does not do the religion book, god made all of us . The only religion book at the moment is the RC faith book, and a general lesson on world religions would not include the phrase 'god made us all'.

If he is indeed intending to entirely excise all mention of religion, even information about world religions then I agree with you, but I do not think that is the case.

Don't get me wrong. I completely understand his decision to keep the child out of an RC Religion class. I wouldn't let my own child attend one either.

That's why we went to a lot of extra effort and expense to send ours elsewhere. I realise not everyone has that option and I don't believe that's fair, but I also believe people need to take some responsibility for these issues themselves where possible. Waiting on the state to proactively step in and sort it out is futile.

WRT OP - Those are his words quoted above. His intent is crystal clear but I understand he's angry and frustrated and probably doesn't actually take it to such extremes.

fisgon

DK man wrote: »

Op - how do you know that 'over 80% of the families are non practicing Catholics? Catholics are not a homogenous bunch some go to mass every day and others weekly and some occasional and others never but still manage to hold onto their Christian faith.

How do you know this? You are saying what we all know to be true, from survey after survey, that the majority of people (and the vast majority of parents of primary age children) do not go to mass. So on what are you basing your idea that "they still manage to hold on to their Christian faith". On a couple of people that you know? What evidence do you have that these people who never darken the door of a church (and they are now in the majority) are still Christian?

DK man wrote: »

Religion lessons involve art music drama geography history politics conflict resolution - and also a framework to discuss ethical questions.

No they don't. Religion lessons involve religion. If you want children to learn art teach them art, if you want them to be taught geography, teach them geography. If you want them to discuss ethical questions, you don't need religion, just teach them about ethics.

DK man wrote: »

If you believe that there is nothing behind Christianity then whatever osmosis occurs can't be harmful.

What are you talking about? How is it not harmful for your child to be taught that something is true that has no basis in fact, and which you fundamentally disagree with? Would Catholic parents be happy to be in a position to have to send their child to the nearest Madrassa,....... any Islam that they pick up by osmosis, sure where's the harm if they start praying towards Mecca five times a day?

DK man

Last census - one objective measure - I think 87% declared as Christian. What survey after survey are you reading? Are you also saying that if you don't go to mass you can't possibly hold onto some faith? I don't go every Sunday but I still have faith.


This novena is run in my town every year and thousands attend the daily events. If you drive within a mile of the church you will know that there is something big going on.

Ever been to a blessing of the babies - I went with our youngest and left unblessed as the place was thronged with hundreds of people queueing up. Now I'm sure not all these people are regular attenders but why are they getting their child blessed????

http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/local-news/st-gerard-s-novena-begins-next-week-1-5529688

Blessing of the graves in Dundalk is also quite a spectacle of young and old



You can't possibly compare re class with a madrassa - u are undermining whatever arguments that you may have if you are!

Christiaity is not for everyone nor should it be - by the way some of the posters on this forum are ranting you'd think it is some form of dangerous plague.

I teach my young children about athesist and other religions as they have friends at school - they are not in any way threatened by them - I'm glad that they are open minded and also becoming educated about the world

Samaris

Swanner wrote: »

I would genuinely welcome change but not the change you want which enforces your minority views on the current majority by only offering a secular education. Why should "secular" be the default ? Because you want it ? Whether you like it or not, you are a minority and until that changes, you have no option other then to accept it as a reality

Secular education actually discriminates against nobody. There is always the option to ..y'know, teach your child your own beliefs yourself. It doesn't "ban any mention of religion" as is repeatedly being implied in this thread. It's -indoctrination- that people are protesting about, not teaching about religions.

Secular education leaves room for children to be taught by their parents, in Sunday School, in after-school classes, which a lot of children do anyway. It's more -convenient- to leave it up to the school, of course, but that doesn't say much for the educating of personal religion in the home.

Catholic education being the ethos in 92% of schools means that anyone who isn't a Catholic is, actually, being discriminated against. Not a theoretical discrimination, actual issues with getting your child into education, the "silver bullet". I've also read on this thread as to not having that handy barrier keeps the riff-raff out, and honestly, that is both a disgusting and a completely incorrect argument anyway.

Swanner wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, you are a minority

True, been said many times before. Fortunately, it doesn't always take a directly affected majority if enough people decide that a given situation is poorly balanced.

Turtwig

Mod Note:

We already have several threads discussing the delivery of education to kids. Please keep this thread on the topic requested in the OP.

The Bishop Basher

fisgon wrote: »

How do you know this? You are saying what we all know to be true, from survey after survey, that the majority of people (and the vast majority of parents of primary age children) do not go to mass. So on what are you basing your idea that "they still manage to hold on to their Christian faith". On a couple of people that you know? What evidence do you have that these people who never darken the door of a church (and they are now in the majority) are still Christian?

The census figures are indisputable.

The vast vast majority of the population identify as Christian. The vast majority of those identify as RC. How they choose to worship is their business and has absolutely nothing to do with you. That you choose to make judgements about their faith based on your own projections says far more about you then it does them.

The Bishop Basher

Samaris wrote: »

Secular education actually discriminates against nobody. There is always the option to ..y'know, teach your child your own beliefs yourself. It doesn't "ban any mention of religion" as is repeatedly being implied in this thread. It's -indoctrination- that people are protesting about, not teaching about religions.

Secular education leaves room for children to be taught by their parents, in Sunday School, in after-school classes, which a lot of children do anyway. It's more -convenient- to leave it up to the school, of course, but that doesn't say much for the educating of personal religion in the home.

In your opinion obviously. I understand this position to an extent but it leaves out one vital point. If you have a right to a secular education then parents of faith have a right to a faith based education and it surprises me that an atheist minority continue to call for a Secular only system despite this fact. I respect your right to the education of your choice. Why can't you respect mine ?

To suggest it be taught in Sunday school is nothing short of insulting tbh. Why should those parents, and children, have to attend extra classes on a Sunday just to keep a minority happy ? Remember, as has been pointed out many times, a great many of us that want faith based education don't go to church. Now Atheists might have an issue with that but those that do are just making judgements again and that's not a credible position.

Samaris wrote: »

Catholic education being the ethos in 92% of schools means that anyone who isn't a Catholic is, actually, being discriminated against. Not a theoretical discrimination, actual issues with getting your child into education, the "silver bullet". I've also read on this thread as to not having that handy barrier keeps the riff-raff out, and honestly, that is both a disgusting and a completely incorrect argument anyway.

You have no argument from me here. The system is blatantly unfair and needs to change but it can't be to the detriment of the majority who still want a faith based education.

Samaris wrote: »

True, been said many times before. Fortunately, it doesn't always take a directly affected majority if enough people decide that a given situation is poorly balanced.

Agreed but the change has to come from somewhere and if it's enough of a priority for someone, they'll start either working for that change on a national level or at the very least, change their own circumstances to ensure their children receive a secular education.

I can understand why that's an unpopular opinion here but i'm unsympathetic with any atheist that, for example, bought a family home in an area without a secular school offering. They knew the lack of options, they knew they'd have kids down the line yet they bought anyway. Obviously it's a matter of personal choice when buying a house. We weigh up the pros and cons of an area and for most I know, schools will play a major factor in that decision. But please don't blame anyone else when your decision to live close to your parents or close to work trumps your decision to purchase in an area with a secular school offering because you've made a deliberate choice based on your priorities and you either live with the consequences of that or you make alternative plans. But no-one is going to solve the problem for you in the short or medium term.

Likewise for those living in less populated areas where a secular school is currently unviable. Nothing is going to change for them any time soon. So they have 2 options, they can accept the reality and take action to address it for themselves and their families, or they can refuse to accept the reality and instead, jump on boards for a whine about how unfair it all seems. Both options will probably make them feel better but only one will actually solve their problem.

I've done it, my parents have done it and I see countless other families do it all the time. It may involve huge sacrifices, it might create massive upheaval but if something is a priority for you and your family you'll move mountains to make it happen - No ?

None of the above negates the need for, or the ability of others to push for a fairer system but that will take decades and kids only have a relatively short time in school so if you need to make changes to ensure your child receives the education you want for them, it's up to you to find the best available solution.

I 100% respect your right to a secular education and would support you in a vote tomorrow, given the chance, but never ever at the expense of faith based education and that's something atheists are going to have to figure a way around before they can effectively advance their cause in this regard.

Edited to ad, the use of "you" in the text above is not directed directly at you Samaris but used in a more general sense.

lazygal

We live in an area with an ET school but still can't count on getting a place. The other schools all discriminate on religious grounds and the indoctrination elements are extremely concerning. How......cruel it is to suggest our children should be at a disadvantage because of their lack of religious beliefs in the provision of essential state services. Should hospitals also only treat those of the "right" faith first?

Huntergonzo

lazygal wrote: »

We live in an area with an ET school but still can't count on getting a place. The other schools all discriminate on religious grounds and the indoctrination elements are extremely concerning. How......cruel it is to suggest our children should be at a disadvantage because of their lack of religious beliefs in the provision of essential state services. Should hospitals also only treat those of the "right" faith first?

No parent should have to worry about state funded religous indoctrination, it's baffling that the state continues on with this insane situation whereby a religious order runs our primary schools with our money.

Still the situation appears to be very unclear, there doesn't seem to be any real will from the government to stop this crazy discrimination, but because there is this apparent lack of will the important questions aren't being asked. I want to know what exactly the state can and can't do in relation to removing the catholic church entirely from publicly funded schools. (Not removing balanced RE or private catholic schools obviously).

DK man

'Indoctrination elements' a wee bit strong I think... The op opened up stating that the school were very supportive and facilitated an opt out. This would be the situation in every school in Ireland. The influences in the home are much more important and determining than the class. Do the many Muslim children who attend catholic schools go home and tell ther parents they no longer want to be Muslims

I know parents who are atheist and send their children to the Christian school even though the et school In their town Ardee is anything but oversubscribed. Their reason is that et is a very loaded type of philosophy that promotes multiculturalism and we all know now that the countries that adopted this have had since had serious reservations about this and also that other elements are a bit fluffy.

I think the biggest issue for non believer are problem sacraments. In Norway they have a humanist type ceremony at confirmation time - this could be a solution - atheist children could have a separate ceremony around the same time - the one in Norway seen as a rite of passage and asks the children to make a number of pledges regard personal development and citizenship. Maybe this needs to be explored in the Irish context. So children don't feel left out or sidelines - they just have a different big day out...

Instead of bemoaning about what goes on christian schools I think it would be much more productive to call a meeting and set up a committee to start a school of your own design. This government is very supportive of these initiatives and no doubt in certain areas there would be some demand

DK man

Huntergonzo wrote: »

No parent should have to worry about state funded religous indoctrination, it's baffling that the state continues on with this insane situation whereby a religious order runs our primary schools with our money.

Still the situation appears to be very unclear, there doesn't seem to be any real will from the government to stop this crazy discrimination, but because there is this apparent lack of will the important questions aren't being asked. I want to know what exactly the state can and can't do in relation to removing the catholic church entirely from publicly funded schools. (Not removing balanced RE or private catholic schools obviously).

Religious orders own most of the schools that's why they have such a say - our money is also my money and many other catholic parents and the majority of Irish parents. Our money is also used to pay for and build et schools and I have no problem with that and our money is also used for other things I don't necessarily subscribe to but that's life. In the area where the church offered over schools for divestment there was Local uproar. The church is willing and wants to give away a portion of their schools but they are having problems getting takers.

This our money is a load of nonesence -

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

We live in an area with an ET school but still can't count on getting a place. The other schools all discriminate on religious grounds and the indoctrination elements are extremely concerning. How......cruel it is to suggest our children should be at a disadvantage because of their lack of religious beliefs in the provision of essential state services.

It's not cruel at all. If parents don't want to send their children to religious ethos schools, they don't have to. By that same token, the school should not have to provide a service to parents who do not support the school's ethos. That would put the other children at a disadvantage.

If the schools were directly run by the State, then you would have legitimate grounds to claim discrimination if your child were refused a place in a school run by the State with no religious ethos.

Should hospitals also only treat those of the "right" faith first?

I don't see the relationship between hospitals and schools? Are people refusing treatment for fear of being indoctrinated in hospitals? If they choose to exclude themselves from hospitals, they can hardly claim they're being discriminated against.

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not cruel at all. If parents don't want to send their children to religious ethos schools, they don't have to. By that same token, the school should not have to provide a service to parents who do not support the school's ethos. That would put the other children at a disadvantage.

How does running a school in an inclusive manner "put other children at a disadvantage"? How does inviting ALL students and parents to the tea/cakes social after the communion/confirmation put other children at a disadvantage?

Huntergonzo

DK man wrote: »

Religious orders own most of the schools that's why they have such a say - our money is also my money and many other catholic parents and the majority of Irish parents. Our money is also used to pay for and build et schools and I have no problem with that and our money is also used for other things I don't necessarily subscribe to but that's life. In the area where the church offered over schools for divestment there was Local uproar. The church is willing and wants to give away a portion of their schools but they are having problems getting takers.

This our money is a load of nonesence -

Do they own them? I mean I'm sure they own some of the older ones but did they actually fork out the money to build new schools or was that tax payer money, and if so did the state just hand over these new buildings as a gift? Exactly what is the situation? Who's name is on the title?

The state has no business promoting one religion or none, I wouldn't have a problem with our money going towards secular schools because they don't take sides.

I'm extremely dubious of the church wanting to give away much control over the public education system, it's the only real way they can continue to recruit new catholic. Giving up the education system isn't in their interests at all.

Who's money is it then? Have we no right to question how it's spent? Just hand it over and stay quiet, is that the way forward?

melissak

Just read in the paper that fee paying schools are subsidised too. I wouldn't mind the likes of the Steiner schools as they are not overly expensive and are largely funded by fundraising by parents who like the ethos and scrape together the extra money for the fees as it is important to them. But the high priced elitist schools should get no funding. If it is that important to you not to send your child to school near poor people pay for it yourself. The whole system needs an overhaul. Certain interests are getting a free ride at the expense of others.

melissak

RainyDay wrote: »

How does running a school in an inclusive manner "put other children at a disadvantage"? How does inviting ALL students and parents to the tea/cakes social after the communion/confirmation put other children at a disadvantage?

It doesn't at all. Most Catholic schools do in fairness. My friends school had the non catholic kids sing in the coir for communion s if they wanted to participate. They could dress up or not as they liked. It was nice i thought to give them the option.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

How does running a school in an inclusive manner "put other children at a disadvantage"? How does inviting ALL students and parents to the tea/cakes social after the communion/confirmation put other children at a disadvantage?

See, this is the reason why people will never be a threat to the current status quo - you're still on about not being invited to tea and biscuits, while at the same time you're complaining that you have to take an hour off work and all the rest of it, all about you and your time and everything has to suit you.

Meanwhile, this is a national issue, and you're complaining about tea and biscuits. This is why I rarely comment on individual circumstances, because I can understand where they're coming from, but I don't want to point out that they come across as only interested in themselves and their needs.

The OP at least doesn't want his child going into school telling the other children they're wrong, but the thing is, they're not going to be able to stop their child letting that cat out of the bag either. If parents want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos, that is their prerogative. If parents want to exclude their children from religious indoctrination/faith formation (whatever), that again is their prerogative.

If the school supports the parents wishes, then it's a bit rich to complain that the school isn't being inclusive when the parents want their children excluded! If you want to organise a social gathering for parents, then you should talk to the other parents and not try and make that the schools responsibility.

One eyed Jack

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'm extremely dubious of the church wanting to give away much control over the public education system, it's the only real way they can continue to recruit new catholic. Giving up the education system isn't in their interests at all.

No it's not. They continue to "recruit" new members of the Roman Catholic Church through parents choosing to have their children baptised. The parents then decide to send their children to schools where their children are indoctrinated. That's the parents choice. The RCC aren't going to give up education as long as there are parents who want that type of education for their children, so going after the RCC is just silly when it's the parents you should be targeting in order to get them to support a change in the education system.

The RCC isn't going to close down schools while they're still full of children, and the State has a duty to provide for those children's education. That means that they have to fund the education of those children, no matter who is providing the service as long as they meet the criteria for school patronage. If the State withdrew funding for RCC ethos schools, they would also have to withdraw funding from ET and Gaelscoileanna.

eviltwin

There are plenty of Catholic children in our ET who manage to get their religious education and sacrament preparation without it discriminating against other faiths or taking over the school day. The kids stay behind just as kids stay behind for sport, drama etc. It's possible to have a non religious school day while still providing religious children with what they need, it's happening already. There is nothing that will ever convince me that it's a good idea to segregate children according to religious beliefs.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not. They continue to "recruit" new members of the Roman Catholic Church through parents choosing to have their children baptised. The parents then decide to send their children to schools where their children are indoctrinated. That's the parents choice. The RCC aren't going to give up education as long as there are parents who want that type of education for their children, so going after the RCC is just silly when it's the parents you should be targeting in order to get them to support a change in the education system.

The RCC isn't going to close down schools while they're still full of children, and the State has a duty to provide for those children's education. That means that they have to fund the education of those children, no matter who is providing the service as long as they meet the criteria for school patronage. If the State withdrew funding for RCC ethos schools, they would also have to withdraw funding from ET and Gaelscoileanna.

It's only a choice if you have options and as you know many parents don't have an alternative to a Catholic school

Huntergonzo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not. They continue to "recruit" new members of the Roman Catholic Church through parents choosing to have their children baptised. The parents then decide to send their children to schools where their children are indoctrinated. That's the parents choice. The RCC aren't going to give up education as long as there are parents who want that type of education for their children, so going after the RCC is just silly when it's the parents you should be targeting in order to get them to support a change in the education system.

Ah yes the parents, the parents who were once children themselves and the majority of which were also baptised (without their consent) and sent to catholic schools, like their parents before them and their grandparents etc etc etc notice a patern? This is how the recruitment process works, but deny it all you wish.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The RCC isn't going to close down schools while they're still full of children, and the State has a duty to provide for those children's education. That means that they have to fund the education of those children, no matter who is providing the service as long as they meet the criteria for school patronage. If the State withdrew funding for RCC ethos schools, they would also have to withdraw funding from ET and Gaelscoileanna.

The state does have a duty to provide for childrens education, but they have no business funding the RCC to run the schools so they can indoctrinate children with unprovable faith based catholic dogma. Give children the proper tools to make up the own minds, not teach them that they're 'catholics' up to the age of 18 and then flippantly say 'well now you can make your own mind up', it's complete bullshít.

Ps, who actually owns these schools, does anybody have a clear answer as to who pays for these buildings and who actually legally owns the buildings?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

It's only a choice if you have options and as you know many parents don't have an alternative to a Catholic school

Ok, I'll admit it's unreasonable to expect parents to go to extreme lengths to avail of education for their children (homeschooling is pants IMO, but it's becoming quite popular with parents who want individual attention for their children), but it's just as unreasonable IMO, to expect other parents who send their children to that type of school which provides that type of education that they want for their children, to expect them to send their children to a different type of school which would appear to be supported by a minority of parents.

You'd just be creating the opposite problem - parents who don't want to send their children to non-denom State schools, complaining that they have no reasonable alternatives if they want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos.

Somehow I doubt over-subscription would ever be a problem for State schools though, they have a massive PR problem with the perception that the education they provide (even though they provide the same educational curriculum as religious ethos schools), isn't the type of education many parents want for their children.

If I were the OP, I wouldn't be afraid of my child being exposed to new ideas coming from other sources. If the argument is for inclusion, then that requires that they not exclude their children. Are people that afraid that their children can't think for themselves that they have to protect them from ideas which they as parents don't agree with? How is that any different from the segregation they argue against? I've heard children in the playground slagging each other saying "You're an atheist!", and it's wrong, but they're picking it up from someone, and it's usually the parents.

The way the OP and other posters have gone on here, do they not expect that their children aren't picking up on their ideas about people who identify as religious? They're perpetuating discrimination themselves while blaming other people for discrimination against them! Religion or absence thereof, is just another way for people to argue for their "safe spaces" for communities of people who share their ideas, to promote their ideas at the exclusion of other people. You can't have an equal education system when people want to differentiate themselves from other people. At that stage it might be best for those people to homeschool their children, because they're never going to be able to protect their children from ideas they don't like coming from other people.

looksee

I have given up trying to separate the three different schools threads. This is nothing to do with 'what to tell the kids' however.

The religious side of the discussion are flatly refusing to acknowledge that there are two different situations. The (various) churches built some schools, at a time when RC schools were fee-paying. Obviously they were Catholic ethos as they were Catholic schools, and as Mary has frequently pointed out, parents sent their children there because there was a hope for exclusivity - the poor kids went to the National schools. I for one have no issue with these schools retaining an RC ethos - and if there are not enough schools in an area where the RC schools are the only schools available, then yes, the state should provide alternative buildings.

These 'private schools' have long been maintained and developed by the state, and teachers paid by the state. At a time when there were members of orders teaching in the schools I believe their salaries were recycled back into the school to some extent, they were still paid by the state.

The other form of school was the National school. These were built, maintained, and subsequently re-built by the state - originally pre-independence. All funding came from the state (and a certain amount from parents in a voluntary capacity). In a some cases land might have been donated, but at the time it was being donated for a school, not to the church. Once Independence was achieved the new government gave over a great deal of authority to the RC church in the constitution, and in practical matters such as education. The National schools were handed over, the vast majority to the RC church, others to other denominations. I have been unable to establish whether the actual property was legally handed over, though I have asked the Minister's office.

These are the schools for which the church (of any shade) has no actual input, beyond saying what the ethos will be. They have at all times been state run and paid for. There is no reason why any religious body should have any authority in them.

One eyed Jack

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ah yes the parents, the parents who were once children themselves and the majority of which were also baptised (without their consent) and sent to catholic schools, like their parents before them and their grandparents etc etc etc notice a patern? This is how the recruitment process works, but deny it all you wish.

Why would I deny it when according to all the evidence presented, the recruitment process isn't working? How many times have other posters pointed out that parents only send their children to religious ethos schools only because there is no alternative? How many adults went to religious ethos schools as children, who you would now claim are actually really non-religious?

How many people here were educated in religious institutions who now no longer identify as religious? Piss poor recruitment process if you ask me tbh. If anything, it's been evidenced since the mid-90's that people are abandoning the RCC in their droves!

The state does have a duty to provide for childrens education, but they have no business funding the RCC to run the schools so they can indoctrinate children with unprovable faith based catholic dogma. Give children the proper tools to make up the own minds, not teach them that they're 'catholics' up to the age of 18 and then flippantly say 'well now you can make your own mind up', it's complete bullshít.

You'll have to talk to parents about that one, as they are usually the legal guardians of their children until their children are 18 years of age, so they make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of their children, and sometimes, well, what you feel are in their children's best interests, are irrelevant.

I don't believe in starving children, but my child's friends observe Ramadan because that's what their parents feel is in their children's best interests. I don't think it's necessary for me to interfere with how those parents choose to raise their children in their own community. My child often heads to Mosque with them and I don't have a problem with this, because he's learning about other people, cultures and religions through experience, and not just what he sees as suicide bombers on television.

Ps, who actually owns these schools, does anybody have a clear answer as to who pays for these buildings and who actually legally owns the buildings?

The RCC owns most of them, and they are entitled to certain grants from the State for some things, and they have to apply for grants for other things, but the administration of the schools are done through the diocesan offices in the parish. Off the top of my head, if the patron covers 5% of the costs of a new school, they are appointed to manage the school (wouldn't quote me on that though, there's more to it and it's not actually as simple as that).

The State simply doesn't have the resources to manage schools and so they're investigating options that would mean schools would be managed at local level with the participation of the community and parents, but that'll just lead to yet another report that Government won't act on that'll gather dust in some office somewhere.

Turtwig

Mod: There are currently 19 off topic posts since the first warning in this thread. I'm still debating whether to just delete these as it's quite clear that moving them to the school megathread isn't really an option. In any case, any further off topic posts will be deleted of that you can be certain.

looksee

Where is the school megathread?

Turtwig

looksee wrote: »

Where is the school megathread?

This big guy.

It doesn't have the official title of megathread though. My bad there. Perhaps, it's time we baptised it?

looksee

Oh right. Nah, it doesn't matter to me, I have had it with this discussion (in all three threads).

I have been told what I think, what I believe, what I want, what my politics and social attitudes are and despite having tried to explain the atheist (or at least my atheist) position - in the A&A forum, I am assured by other people that I want atheist ethos schools etc and to get rid of religion out of schools, that 'most people' want religious schools and I should go off and build my own.

It is not a discussion it is a few people endlessly repeating a mantra that honestly sounds a lot like trolling.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Oh right. Nah, it doesn't matter to me, I have had it with this discussion.

I have been told what I think, what I believe, what I want, what my politics and social attitudes are and despite having tried to explain the atheist (or at least my atheist) position - in the A&A forum, I am assured by other people that I want atheist ethos schools etc and to get rid of education out of schools, that 'most people' want religious schools and I should go off and build my own.

It is not a discussion it is a few people endlessly repeating a mantra that honestly sounds a lot like trolling.

Tbh though looksee, if you'll forgive the crudeness of the expression - is it not simply a case of 'two cheeks of the same arse'?

I didn't want to contribute to this thread after repeatedly trying to correct some posters misinformation, misunderstanding, moving goalposts, and just outright trying to get a rise out of people.

I'm able to entertain robust discussion, and it's one of the things I like about this forum, but I do wonder, perhaps this is a suggestion for the feedback thread - would it be more beneficial to posters like the OP to move specific scenarios to the Parenting forum, or the Primary and pre school forum?

I'm only suggesting this as the issue of secular education and patronage is bigger than individual scenarios, and in every thread that presents an individual's scenario, it inevitably evolves into a discussion about secularism and patronage, and we go over the same old ground again and again.

I think your thread is different enough to the main school patronage thread as yours is more concerned with how to go about achieving a secular education system / equality in education, whereas the other patronage thread seems to be just updates with the latest progress (or lack thereof), and discussing the updates.

The Bishop Basher

I think we all agree that we want change and it needs to start somewhere.

I also think it hasn't been the best debate from both sides in spots.

I'm not proud of a couple of my posts and i'm not afraid to admit that.

But it's so important that we have these discussions because if we want it changed then it's up to us to change it and the real onus, to be fair, is on the atheist community as they are currently the most disenfranchised of everyone.

We all want fairness and we just have to work together to achieve it.

Huntergonzo

@ One eyed Jack

Just to let you know I posted a detailed reply to your last post but it got deleted because it came after the warning which is fair enough (I started the reply before the warning was posted, so I didn't see it in time), but thanks for the response anyway.

Shrap

Turtwig wrote: »

This big guy.

It doesn't have the official title of megathread though. My bad there. Perhaps, it's time we baptised it?

Excommunicating it might be the kinder option in this forum. Ye can baptise it in the Christianity forum if they start a thread there, eh?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I don't want to get technical, and say we're all star dust, etc

Why ever not One of the real joys of being a parent I have found is answering their questions. And I love it because kids can ask questions in ways you never would have, or even better ask questions you never would have asked at all.

And it is a great motivator to get up and get the answers, learn them yourself, and then formulate them in a way amenable to their age. It is challenging, stimulating, educational and at just about every level wonderful. I can only recommend it.

And if your child ends up fully infected with a religious meme disease when it is older, telling you with an earnest face to repent or that god impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to itself, or that bits of cracker bread can be infected with the spirit of the creator of the universe if you say the right latin words to it..... or whatever other unsubstantiated and stultifying nonsense the likes of One Eyed Jack subscribe to as true.... is there a risk you may look back and regret not answering those questions to the full extent of your ability at the time?

Of course you might do so and they STILL get fully infected with the religious meme disease, but at least then there is little risk of regret on your part.

As for what I tell children when they ask me about god belief I have a simple answer to that which I have seen repeated by a couple of other users around the forum so I am glad to see it caught on, even a little.

But I find children enjoy imagination and getting lost in imagination. And I find too that they do so while never really losing sight of the border between the imaginary and the real. In fact in play with my daughter (now 5) sometimes I get so lost in the game it is HER not me that says "Don't forget this is all pretend!!".

So when asked about god belief I just answer "Well do you know how when you really imagine something it can seem really really real sometimes?" to which children, almost invariably, will say yes, "Well, sometimes some people forget what they imagine actually is not real".

And I find children _really_ get that and it can be quite a simple 30 second inoculation against infection that I would like to hope works more often than not.

As a few users on the thread have likely told you (I have not read the whole thing from one end to the other due to obsessive off topc drivel) it is not that easy to opt young children out of religion. They might have opted your child out of one certain module called "religion" or something and let them go off coloring in a corner or what not.... but with the "Integrated curriculum" the teaching about religion and god permeates much of the rest of the day too. So opting the child out is, pretty much, ineffectual.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... the likes of One Eyed Jack...

Charming... :pac: