1000's of kids making their communion today

flutered

unseenfootage wrote: »

I'd say the vast majority of Muslim countries have secular governments and hence they have secular education.

but do do teach the koran daily, at least they did when i lived in one some 12 years ago

unseenfootage

flutered wrote: »

but do do teach the koran daily, at least they did when i lived in one some 12 years ago

Which country was this?

Hotblack Desiato

catbear wrote: »

Well Kiwi, Irish people were made feel they were second classes citizens in their own country because they weren't Anglican.

That's not a justification to repeat the abuses of the 19th century in the 21st just because catholics are now the ones in a position of control.

catbear wrote: »

Any chance you could meet this society half way?

Is it only immigrants you have a problem with, or is it Irish atheists as well? What does meeting this society half way mean anyway - compulsory catholicism only every second day? There is no reason that any person should accept being discriminated against on the basis of religion.

catbear wrote: »

Unlike New Zealand, Ireland does not have a church leader or god anointed monarch as our head of state.

It's up to the people of NZ to change that, if they wish. I've no idea what Kiwi's views on this issue are and they are entirely irrelevant to this thread anyway.

I'm Irish and have no compunction placed on me to be any religion.

You've not tried to enrol a child in primary school then? 96% will ask you what religion he or she is and most of that 96% have religious discrimination in their admission policy.

You can't become a judge, President or member of the Council of State without taking a religious oath.

96% of schools won't employ a non-beliver as a teacher. Gay teachers now have the legal right to not spend their careers in a closet, atheists do not.

catbear wrote: »

Because I went through the system here and know that children only believe that what their parents believe.

So why on earth are we wasting the precious time of teachers and pupils on this, then??

Hotblack Desiato

unseenfootage wrote: »

It is schools like ET and not Catholic Schools that are turning kids away due to "weak English language."

ET do not turn anyone away on the basis of "weak English language". They operate a first come first served policy, although the most recently opened ones (like all schools opened in the last few years) also have a catchment area policy.

Swanner wrote: »

I don't like it any more then you do but as long as the majority of people in this country consider themselves to be RC, they will continue to enjoy a favourable position in certain aspects of how the state is run.

That's not acceptable and we should not accept it. The state should be strictly neutral with regard to religion.

Christy42

unseenfootage wrote: »

On the other hand if they are so deeply unhappy with the Irish school system then why not move somewhere else where they have secular schools?

Or you know change and make it better.

I mean really you can use that for any issue you like. Patients on trollies? Move. Undrinkable water? Move. Riots going on in the streets? Move.

Note I am not comparing these issues with the religious schools issue. Merely showing that that argument that could be used to deflect from any issue.

unseenfootage

Christy42 wrote: »

Or you know change and make it better.

I mean really you can use that for any issue you like. Patients on trollies? Move. Undrinkable water? Move. Riots going on in the streets? Move.

Note I am not comparing these issues with the religious schools issue. Merely showing that that argument that could be used to deflect from any issue.

Demonising others by accusing them of accepting child molestation is hardly changing and making things better.

Kiwi in IE

unseenfootage wrote: »

Demonising others by accusing them of accepting child molestation is hardly changing and making things better.

It was the OP who made the comments about accepting child abuse, no one else. The OP was not in the discussion when you suggested people should leave the country if they want secular schools.

I accept however that it's a typical response, every time things go tits up here, rather than stay and try to fix it, a large proportion of those who are able to simply flee the country.

Absolam

legocrazy505 wrote: »

But it's what the state should do. The current solution of wasting hundreds of hours on confirmations, communions and nativities gives favouritism to Catholicism. The state should not have any preference and people who disagree with that are being unreasonable, perhaps we should bring in Muslim and Jewish celebration preparations into schools too. While we're at it we can let kids who believe in the flying spaghetti monster to spend class time worshiping him and singing songs of praise.

That's really just a matter of opinion. By and large, what the State should do is what the people want; that's the point of a Republic. There's an argument to be made that on occasion the State should act in the best interests of the people even if that is contrary to what the people want, but it's a tough one to make, and even tougher when you take this particular instance where there are plenty of people willing to argue that not only are faith schools what people evidently want, but they're also in the best interests of the people because they've more chance of being 'saved'. Like I said, it's a matter of opinion.

Christy42 wrote: »

My solution put it in the school building at the end of the school day. Religious parents won't notice any difference.

Sure they would; religion would no longer be part of the school day, so they'd have to have longer hours, and a religious spirit would no longer inform and vivify the school day. They might let one slide, but probably not the other.

Christy42 wrote: »

By the existence of this thread the current solution isn't what everyone wants.

Substituting one solution not everyone wants for another solution not every wants, isn't actually a solution though is it? Nor yet, what you claimed; 'everyone has what they want'.

looksee wrote: »

Do all the people who are arguing so vehemently for the right of primary schools to be Catholic ethos pause at 12 and 6 to say the Angelus?

Why would they? I support parents putting their children in Muslim ethos schools if they want but I don't heed the adhan every day. It's possible to agree people should be free to do things without wanting to do them yourself, surely?

recedite

unseenfootage wrote: »

I'd say the vast majority of Muslim countries have secular governments and hence they have secular education.

Well, everyone is entitled to say their piece, no matter how ridiculous it is
You'll have to be prepared for others to call it bull$hit though.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no reason that any person should accept being discriminated against on the basis of religion.

I don't think that's true. A Christian ought not to expect to be able to celebrate Mass in his local mosque; not permitting it is discrimination on the basis of religion, but it seems reasonable.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The state should be strictly neutral with regard to religion.

In which case we shouldn't try to use the State to force religious schools not to prefer admissions on the basis of religion, or to force them not to have religious instruction? Because if it takes a negative position with regard to religion, that's not being strictly neutral, is it? Strict neutrality would afford the same freedom to teach in accordance with parents wishes to religious and secular schools alike.

Christy42

Absolam wrote: »

Sure they would; religion would no longer be part of the school day, so they'd have to have longer hours, and a religious spirit would no longer inform and vivify the school day. They might let one slide, but probably not the other.
Substituting one solution not everyone wants for another solution not every wants, isn't actually a solution though is it? Nor yet, what you claimed; 'everyone has what they want'.

The school day could be shortened to compensate. I am just putting religion at the end of the day giving non religious parents a chance to take their kids home before it. Would bet a lot of money that this is the one parents would complain about.

No idea what having religion inform the school day actually means. And that is from someone who went to a Christian brothers school with varying degrees of religious teachers.

Absolam

Christy42 wrote: »

The school day could be shortened to compensate. I am just putting religion at the end of the day giving non religious parents a chance to take their kids home before it. Would bet a lot of money that this is the one parents would complain about.

If you're prepared to bet there's one parents would complain about, why would you say everyone has what they want? You obviously don't think so.

Christy42 wrote: »

No idea what having religion inform the school day actually means. And that is from someone who went to a Christian brothers school with varying degrees of religious teachers.

Not religion, a religious spirit. But you make the point well; if you don't know what it is you're not likely to come up with a way of delivering it, are you?

Bristolscale7

Christy42 wrote: »

No idea what having religion inform the school day actually means.

Absolam wrote: »

Not religion, a religious spirit.

You know it when it touches you...

flutered

it will be interesting when the census results come out, the numbers on each religious demominations versus the non denominations

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

If you're prepared to bet there's one parents would complain about, why would you say everyone has what they want? You obviously don't think so.
Not religion, a religious spirit. But you make the point well; if you don't know what it is you're not likely to come up with a way of delivering it, are you?

But Rule 68 has been dropped. Schools no longer need to vivify the day with anything, even a religious spirit.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

But Rule 68 has been dropped. Schools no longer need to vivify the day with anything, even a religious spirit.

Schools aren't obliged to; that doesn't mean that religious parents might not want them to, does it?

Christy42

Absolam wrote: »

Schools aren't obliged to; that doesn't mean that religious parents might not want them to, does it?

Irrelevant if they aren't doing it now this won't change that.

Giving it that spirit would be a new suggestion and different to the current status quo.

robindch

Ohbethehokey wrote: »

[...] But sure you're out working so not there to be helping. [...] Their wish to remain in thier own home takes precedence over your child's well being. You are going to indoctorine your child for their entire life in something you strongly disagree with so a relative can live at home until they die? [...] I don't want to personalise it [...] but the mental gymnastics are fascinating

You're personalizing it quite unpleasantly - any more of this tone of unhelpful post and you'll be feeling the bite of a moderator's cluestick.

The charter's here and I recommend you read it before posting in A+A again.

Absolam

Christy42 wrote: »

Irrelevant if they aren't doing it now this won't change that. Giving it that spirit would be a new suggestion and different to the current status quo.

Why would you think they're not doing it now? Up until recently it was a rule that they must; they can't all have been breaking that rule can they? So in fact asking them not to do it would be a new suggestion and different to the current status quo.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

Why would you think they're not doing it now? Up until recently it was a rule that they must; they can't all have been breaking that rule can they? So in fact asking them not to do it would be a new suggestion and different to the current status quo.

In other words, as many suspected at the time, the repeal of rule 68 makes no ****ing difference.

Absolam

You don't think it makes a difference to everyone who thought it prevented people from opening secular schools?

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

You don't think it makes a difference to everyone who thought it prevented people from opening secular schools?

Absolam

Not really interested in watching another argument by youtube I'm afraid. If you feel you've something to say yourself by all means say it

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

You don't think it makes a difference to everyone who thought it prevented people from opening secular schools?

No one was prevented from opening any sort of school. Only from receiving state money to pay for it if it didn't inform and vivify the school day with religion.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

No one was prevented from opening any sort of school. Only from receiving state money to pay for it if it didn't inform and vivify the school day with religion.

Actually, the rule was that "A religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school"; Christy42 brought that up earlier. Nor have I heard that anyone was prevented from receiving State money to pay for it if it didn't, have you?

Still... the point would be that those who felt it was a barrier to schools that had no intention of having a religious spirit inform and vivify the whole work of the school need no longer feel that way..so the repeal of rule 68 makes some ****ing difference to them, eh?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, the rule was that "A religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school"; Christy42 brought that up earlier. Nor have I heard that anyone was prevented from receiving State money to pay for it if it didn't, have you?

Still... the point would be that those who felt it was a barrier to schools that had no intention of having a religious spirit inform and vivify the whole work of the school need no longer feel that way..so the repeal of rule 68 makes some ****ing difference to them, eh?

There's a non religious Montessori near me. Refused to be religious or multid so it's entirely private and not part of the primary school network.
Sure why would I bother giving you information. You'll proceed in the usual Gish gallop manner to deliberately drag a discussion into tedious argument. So use as many smiles as you want in response. I think the limit is 15.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

There's a non religious Montessori near me. Refused to be religious or multid so it's entirely private and not part of the primary school network. Sure why would I bother giving you information. You'll proceed in the usual Gish gallop manner to deliberately drag a discussion into tedious argument. So use as many smiles as you want in response. I think the limit is 15.

I'm guessing that you're trying to infer that they weren't provided with State funds because they're non religious, but I was asking have you heard of a school that was prevented from receiving State money to pay for the school because a religious spirit didn't inform and vivify the whole work of the school. Did you actually hear that about this particular school... can you cite a source we can check?

I'm afraid I'll need to offer at least a few points (rather that just asking you a question) for you to claim a Gish Gallop, but... well done for trying? It's always fun to see you trying to fit in.


[Edit] I forgot your smilie. Here you go

Christy42

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, the rule was that "A religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school"; Christy42 brought that up earlier. Nor have I heard that anyone was prevented from receiving State money to pay for it if it didn't, have you?

Still... the point would be that those who felt it was a barrier to schools that had no intention of having a religious spirit inform and vivify the whole work of the school need no longer feel that way..so the repeal of rule 68 makes some ****ing difference to them, eh?

Oh right that rule. Why is it relevant to this? Kids still get their religious education as before except now there is an easy opt out. Pretty sure few schools went all out on the religious spirit outside of religion time so it should make no odds to their education.

Absolam

Christy42 wrote: »

Oh right that rule. Why is it relevant to this? Kids still get their religious education as before except now there is an easy opt out. Pretty sure few schools went all out on the religious spirit outside of religion time so it should make no odds to their education.

I'm not sure; Lazygal brought it up and she seems pretty intense about it. Ask her?

The Bishop Basher

lazygal wrote: »

There's a non religious Montessori near me. Refused to be religious or multid so it's entirely private and not part of the primary school network.

Is there such a thing as a religious Montessori ?

I've never heard of one but II'm sure they exist.

My wife is a Montessori teacher and religion plays no part in her day whatsoever.

philstar

the thing is this...

Irish nationalism and Catholicism goes hand in hand the two are tightly intertwined

its to do with our tribalistic past, the whole catholic vs protestant thingy

its embedded in the irish psyche

catbear

philstar wrote: »

the thing is this...

Irish nationalism and Catholicism goes hand in hand the two are tightly intertwined

its to do with our tribalistic past, the whole catholic vs protestant thingy

its embedded in the irish psyche

That's why outsiders probably end up getting the cold shoulder when they criticize such matters. No matter what the local says about their religion or lack of, the fact that invaders used religion to dispossess and persecute their ancestors always makes them weary.

robindch

catbear wrote: »

[...] invaders used religion to dispossess and persecute their ancestors [...]

I'm not sure the RCC wasn't beyond using religion to do exactly the same thing itself.

catbear

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure the RCC wasn't beyond using religion to do exactly the same thing itself.

The Pope gave an english king permission to invade Ireland.

A later pope was an ally of William of Orange. There's even a Dutch Master painting celebrating Williams victory that the Orange Order bought back in the 1920s but has been discretely hidden in Stormount as it shows the Pope conferring his blessing on a billy mounted on his white horse! They obviously bought it without seeing it!

philstar

are you sure its not the archbishop of canterbury??

catbear

philstar wrote: »

are you sure its not the archbishop of canterbury??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5263210.stm

robindch

Statistics collected from 189 families show that parents are now spending EUR845 per communion child, up a miserly 1% on last year. The amount collected by each child averages EUR 570, with 23% receiving more than EUR800, and 13% receiving more than EUR1,000.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/parents-spend-an-average-of-845-on-first-communion-1.3133256?mode=amp

Absolam

I think I need to make my communion again...

Peregrinus

If the kids would just make a bit more of an effort, the whole thing could be self-financing.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the kids would just make a bit more of an effort, the whole thing could be self-financing.

Yes, if the parents introduce a 100% tax rate on their kids, and the kids put in a bit more effort at selling themselves, the whole thing could be self financing.
A kind of Perpetual Money Machine, where everyone's a winner.

Absolam

What do you mean if? I still haven't seen my communion money since the day I got it!

recedite

It must have been lodged in the Bank of Dad, but unfortunately that bank's assets were liquidated down at the pub.
Hard luck

realdanbreen

robindch wrote: »

Statistics collected from 189 families show that parents are now spending EUR845 per communion child, up a miserly 1% on last year. The amount collected by each child averages EUR 570, with 23% receiving more than EUR800, and 13% receiving more than EUR1,000.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/parents-spend-an-average-of-845-on-first-communion-1.3133256?mode=amp

It's crazy to be spending that kind of money. And when you consider that some of those families may not even believe it is even crazier.

robindch

realdanbreen wrote: »

It's crazy to be spending that kind of money. And when you consider that some of those families may not even believe it is even crazier.

Perhaps those who support the church could do more to speak out against this craziness?

I - for one - took no part in this stuff when various young relatives were being communionized, confirmated and so on. Each one received an edition of the bible together with a relevant plaster statue. For some reason, invitations weren't long in stopping.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Each one received an edition of the bible together with a relevant plaster statue.

That's an excellent plan
I'll follow suit from now on. Should be good for a laugh, if nothing else.

realdanbreen

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps those who support the church could do more to speak out against this craziness?

I - for one - took no part in this stuff when various young relatives were being communionized, confirmated and so on. Each one received an edition of the bible together with a relevant plaster statue. For some reason, invitations weren't long in stopping.

I'm not sure if the families who don't believe would pay much attention to what the church might speak out about.

Hotblack Desiato

They paid attention all right when some parishes said they would insist on a fully stamped 'mass loyalty card' before first communion. Did that go ahead?

robindch

This year, communion cost inflation wildly outstripped cost-of-living increases, with the average cost of inducting a new member to the RCC rising around 8% to over €900 per inductee. Girls are taking home an average of around €650 and boys' takehome averages at around €590.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/average-cost-of-first-holy-communion-up-8-to-900-1.3935050

splinter65

robindch wrote: »

This year, communion cost inflation wildly outstripped cost-of-living increases, with the average cost of inducting a new member to the RCC rising around 8% to over €900 per inductee. Girls are taking home an average of around €650 and boys' takehome averages at around €590.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/average-cost-of-first-holy-communion-up-8-to-900-1.3935050

The cost is whatever the parents want it to be. The children get whatever their family friends and neighbors choose to give them.
What’s any of that got to do with the RCC?
It’s the same as the family holiday. Or Christmas.
You can plan your family holiday to be 2 weeks in a five star hotel in Disneyland Florida or a week in Fitzgerald’s caravan park in Tramore.
You can spend €100 on Christmas or €3000.
There’s no pressure from the RCC. In fact the RCC is making tentative attempts to do away with the first communion day as we know it. Parents who want their child to receive the sacrament of first Eucharist will be told to bring the child on any Sunday they think their ready.
But the parents in one parish were so angry about this that the priest had to reverse his plans
https://www.thejournal.ie/priest-reverses-decision-to-end-specific-date-for-first-communion-following-outrage-from-parents-4256217-Sep2018/
What do you want the priest to do exactly?

robindch

splinter65 wrote: »

What’s any of that got to do with the RCC?

Last time I checked, the RCC was organizing the general form of the main day itself, plus insisting that it was necessary, and via the RCC's control of over 90% of the country's primary school network, was also insisting that school kids waste an average of 2.5 hours per week which could be used to educate kids, but was instead spent with the teacher trying to persuade gullible children that the RCC's preposterous religious stories are actually true.