Increase in people identifying as having No Religion

beauf

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

eviltwin

beauf wrote: »

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

I think it's less about discriminating against patients and more to do with certain treatments being vetoed by religious members of the board.

looksee

beauf wrote: »

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

Why should it be acceptable that there is any possibility of discrimination? They are 'generally' not discriminatory? How about 'there is no discrimination at all'?

Mellor

smacl wrote: »

Seriously? Gender is not a matter of choice in any way comparable with religion. If you're talking about transgender people, do you seriously think many of those who felt they had a choice would go through so much pain and crap to undergo gender re-assignment? People change their religion all the time on the other hand and can even be persuaded to do so on occasion.

I never said the seriousness of either was comparable with the other.
I said gender was a matter of identification. issue. How do you not understand that?

The phrase is in fact "gender indentity".
For some, changing their gender identity was simple and came natural. From some people religion is the source incredibly torment. For other the opposite in both cases. There's no relative scale between them. But the fact is they are both about identification.
FYI Being transgender doesn't require gender reassignment.

In every post your twisting something, or conveniently misunderstanding to suit your agenda. It's a bit pointless tbh.
I dont think the religion question does any harm. All of the issues with schools would still exist if the question was never asked.
If you disagree, that's fine.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

I actually meant in my experience they are in general not discriminatory. Because in the real world day to day, on the front line, that isn't workable when a lot of the people you're interacting with aren't even Irish never mind RC. But I guess everyone has a different experience depending where they are.

That's kind of the point I'm making. Most of Irish people rightly shun discrimination and we are by and large a tolerant bunch, yet at the same time we continue to allow the Catholic church to enforce discriminatory practices (e.g. school enrolment) on the basis that most Irish people are Catholics. Most Irish Catholics also clearly shun discrimination as evidenced in the same sex marriage referendum, and choose to do so even when asked not to by their church hierarchy. Thus, as you've said yourself, the census figures showing a Catholic majority don't suggest that the majority stand behind the Catholic church on many important social issues.

darjeeling

beauf wrote: »

When you say it mirrors other countries where did you get that from?

The proportion of people born in other countries has risen here as it has in the US, UK and most if not all of the Eurozone over the last 20 years as OECD stats show. In Ireland it's gone from middle of the pack to amongst the EU's highest.

For higher education, the OECD stats show that proportion with degrees is typically much higher in younger generations. Again, the gap in Ireland is greater due to the rapid increase in young people going to university in recent years and also the arrival of third-level educated younger workers from elsewhere in Europe, as the census shows.

Religious affiliation in Ireland shows a similar generational gap to the UK (census data) and the US (Pew research data). For Europe the data are less available and subject to the same problems of interpretation as here - are people actually religious or is it a cultural identity? But if you take support for same sex marriage (one of the most contentious religious issues of recent years) as some sort of proxy then polling here ahead of the referendum and in other European countries have shown much higher support amongst younger generations and lower support or even opposition in older generations. Also it's striking that Ireland went from one of the last countries to legalise divorce to accepting same sex marriage in 20 years.

There are other changes as well. The proportion of women working has increased in Western Europe and the US over the last 30 years as you can see at gapminder.org. Ireland started at the lowest in the EU at the time and consequently has seen more rapid growth than most other countries. We see much greater population growth and also younger populations in cities, especially Dublin, than in rural areas, again according to the census, reflecting a similar trend in other European countries. And of course we've been hit by the economic downturn in the same way as most other EU countries.

So that's why I think that societal changes here have mirrored those in Europe and in the US, and has arguably been faster here. But while we've seen large populist movements - mainly on the right but sometimes on the left - in other countries, aside from independents and the small showing for AAA/PBP, we've not really seen the same here.

beauf

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it's less about discriminating against patients and more to do with certain treatments being vetoed by religious members of the board.

I don't know which ones are allowed by law but are vetoed by a only religious members of a board. If that situation does exist, I assume its to do with the beliefs of those religious members.

You'd be best starting a new topic to discuss the specifics of that.

looksee wrote: »

Why should it be acceptable that there is any possibility of discrimination? They are 'generally' not discriminatory? How about 'there is no discrimination at all'?

I shouldn't have said in general. You'll all get hung up on that. I should have said in my experience they are not discriminatory. Unless the law prevents it.

Again that is the subject for a different thread, or this one will get derailed away from the census information.

beauf

smacl wrote: »

That's kind of the point I'm making. Most of Irish people rightly shun discrimination and we are by and large a tolerant bunch, yet at the same time we continue to allow the Catholic church to enforce discriminatory practices (e.g. school enrolment) on the basis that most Irish people are Catholics. Most Irish Catholics also clearly shun discrimination as evidenced in the same sex marriage referendum, and choose to do so even when asked not to by their church hierarchy. Thus, as you've said yourself, the census figures showing a Catholic majority don't suggest that the majority stand behind the Catholic church on many important social issues.

Again it comes down to the issue that ticking RC on the census doesn't mean what people are inferring from it. Rather than accept that. People want it to mean something else.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

Again it comes down to the issue that ticking RC on the census doesn't mean what people are inferring from it. Rather than accept that. You want it to mean something else.

Nothing to do with what I do or don't want, it is how others misuse this information that is the issue, as per the previous linked article from the Irish Times.

The CSO tells us that government departments wish to know your religion to help them with planning for services. Services like faith managed schools and chaplaincy services at new hospitals

beauf

By the next census how % of the total population do people think will identify as having No Religion.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

By the next census how % of the total population do people think will identify as having No Religion.

Cynically you could take a guess at the number of those who will no longer be with us who were predominantly Catholic versus younger people filling out the census for the first time who will have among the highest rates of NR and predict a rise on that basis. You also have a dearth of young priests that younger people could relate to which also stifles take up of religion. The papal visit might drag a few back into the fold but if I was to take a punt I'd say about 800,000 NR in the next poll. I'd also guess the less conservative protestant denomination would alfare better than the RC. Reading the tea leaves might give a better results though What's your guess?

beauf

I would guess 15-20% in the census. There will still be scope to misuse the figures.

looksee

The ONLY reason that it matters what percentage of people tick no religion is that it is used to support a situation where a supposed majority of people professing a particular religion significantly influences the rest of the population. If we had a truly secular state the people who have a religion of any sort could practice it, and those who have none would not be affected by that practice.

This would remove the need for parents to hypocritically baptise their children just to get them into school;
It would remove the need for parents to have to arrange for their children to be segregated in school, in order they are not taught rituals that are not part of their own beliefs;
It would remove the influence of the Catholic church in hospitals, and the consequent religion-led decisions on women's health;
It would remove the apparent stranglehold the Catholic Church has on the elected government of the country and its interference with matters that should be secular.

None of this would prevent parents from raising their children in any faith they choose, in teaching them whatever beliefs they choose, or having them initiated into whatever religious groupings they choose - though admittedly in many cases this would require parents to have a more active involvement in their children's rites of passage.

People who did not wish for intervention in pregnancy for whatever reason - whether for health, psychological or any other reason, would not be obliged to accept it. And the rank hypocrisy of exporting these 'women's problems' to other juristictions would be removed.

beauf

I think it would be more successful to focus on achieving secular state, and bypass the census discussion completely.

I think society will force change before the census reflects it.

Hotblack Desiato

Mellor wrote: »

But the church control isn't based on census data. That's a fact.

No, it's an unfortunate legacy of history, but the census is nonetheless being used by various groups in an attempt to justify the continuation of RCC control.

The churches control, or lack of control, should be dictated by the wants of the people. Regardless of what they identify with.

Actually we should base the delivery of state services on a human rights based approach.

Otherwise what we have is what we have now - crude majoritarianism where the majority are "All Right Jack" and the rights of minorities are routinely trampled.

These are state services, paid for by all taxpayers, but not delivered to all taxpayers in a fair or equitable manner.

Hotblack Desiato

More census abuse:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/iona-institute-opposes-end-to-good-friday-drink-sales-ban-1.3045453

According to Census 2016 figures, “78.3 per cent of the population identify themselves as Catholic. Good Friday marks an important day in the Christian calendar and is a day that is commemorated by many Christians in Ireland and worldwide,” Mr O’Connor said.

It doesn't matter if there is only one non-catholic in the country. It's wrong to restrict his or her rights because of catholic dogma.

Mellor

looksee wrote: »

This would remove the need for parents to hypocritically baptise their children just to get them into school;

It's hypocritical for antitheists to baptise their children to get them into school. But not hypocritical for someone who's an atheist - and nothing more.

I fully agree that it's a ridiculous game to play in order to get an education. But I wouldn't criticise anyone for playing the game until such a time that it's removed.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, it's an unfortunate legacy of history, but the census is nonetheless being used by various groups in an attempt to justify the continuation of RCC control.

And it's also being used to denounce the RCC control. The exact same figures.


What % of schools national are under Church control/patronage/whatever. (I genuinely don't know). I would have presumed that its over 78%, in which case I don't see how the census backs up that control.
The Iona institute claiming it, doesn't making it so. A child old could tear down that argument

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

It's hypocritical for antitheists to baptise their children to get them into school. But not hypocritical for someone who's an atheist - and nothing more.

I fully agree that it's a ridiculous game to play in order to get an education. But I wouldn't criticise anyone for playing the game until such a time that it's removed.

You just did though. You called them hypocrites. Others might call them pragmatists taking the least worst choice among a set of undesirable options. It could just be that they're antitheists as you call them (more likely just anti-RCC) because they have to go through this nonsense in the first place. Most parents just want what is best for their child and will become very annoyed to have to go through this nonsense just to end up with something that isn't even that.

Mellor

I was pointing out it was a hypocritical action, as it directly contradicts an opposition to religion. But I'm just stating a fact. Don't confuse that with criticism. I mean, I clearly said I wasn't criticising them. There nothing wrong with putting your child ahead of everything else.

smacl

Mellor wrote: »

I was pointing out it was a hypocritical action, as it directly contradicts an opposition to religion. But I'm just stating a fact. Don't confuse that with criticism. I mean, I clearly said I wasn't criticising them. There nothing wrong with putting your child ahead of everything else.

It is not hypocrisy when you act under duress and put the best interests of your child before your own personally held principals. It is well considered pragmatism.

Qs

Its not really fair to call people hypocrites for criticising actions that are forced on them by the system.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

It is not hypocrisy when you act under duress and put the best interests of your child before your own personally held principals. It is well considered pragmatism.

Unfortunately this 'pragmatism' forces other parents to do the same, or risk their kids losing out.

If nobody did this, nobody would feel compelled to do this, and nobody would lose out for not doing this.

It would help also if we had fewer catholic snobs who turn their noses up at their local RC school and instead take the bus elsewhere and deny a place to a local child in that area, who may have no other options given that ETs are oversubscribed and a non-religious child is bottom of the admission list in most RC schools.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unfortunately this 'pragmatism' forces other parents to do the same, or risk their kids losing out. If nobody did this, nobody would feel compelled to do this, and nobody would lose out for not doing this. It would help also if we had fewer catholic snobs who turn their noses up at their local RC school and instead take the bus elsewhere and deny a place to a local child in that area, who may have no other options given that ETs are oversubscribed and a non-religious child is bottom of the admission list in most RC schools.

So, the baptism barrier is being caused by atheists posing as religious, and Catholics who want a school better than the local one for their kids are snobs? Are the athiests who do the same not snobs too then?

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unfortunately this 'pragmatism' forces other parents to do the same, or risk their kids losing out.

Not true. It is as often as not the parents who have to go through this nonsense that are creating all the uproar in the media which is in turn putting pressure on the politicians and slowly effecting change. To suggest they're at fault for playing the system on the one hand while attacking on the other is both incorrect and victim blaming.

Most people who would like an ET school place at this point in time will be disappointed, as all ET schools are grossly oversubscribed and have to turn away many more than they can accept. Parents need a workable plan B.
Worth remembering that over half of ET school places are currently filled by Catholic kids. While this is perfectly reasonable, it illustrates the proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

smacl

Just caught the tail end of Michael Nugent and David Quinn talking about this on the radio. Fair play to Michael Nugent, some patience putting up with that Quinn fella.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Not true. It is as often as not the parents who have to go through this nonsense that are creating all the uproar in the media which is in turn putting pressure on the politicians and slowly effecting change. To suggest they're at fault for playing the system on the one hand while attacking on the other is both incorrect and victim blaming.

I don't think that's true. I'd say it's organisations (like ET) who are providing attractive alternatives to denominational educational organisations, and the parents who support them by sending their children to them who are the ones effecting change.

smacl wrote: »

Most people who would like an ET school place at this point in time will be disappointed, as all ET schools are grossly oversubscribed and have to turn away many more than they can accept. Parents need a workable plan B.

I doubt anyone could actually demonstrate that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed; I think that's pure hyperbole. There are certainly oversubscribed schools, no doubt. I'd say they tend to be the good schools, and that includes denom and non-denom alike.

smacl wrote: »

Worth remembering that over half of ET school places are currently filled by Catholic kids. While this is perfectly reasonable, it illustrates the proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

I don't think it does. It certainly illustrates an appetite for a broader range of educational styles than we once had, but there is a great deal to recommend ET schools, not least their inclusiveness. They themselves make no claims about being secular or promoting secularity in their mission statement, values, or charter, though they do mention all religious backgrounds being equally respected, which I think is a far more laudable aim.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt anyone could actually demonstrate that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed; I think that's pure hyperbole. There are certainly oversubscribed schools, no doubt. I'd say they tend to be the good schools, and that includes denom and non-denom alike.

This and other similar articles demonstrate over-subscription. It also demonstrates the continuing difficulties of trying to accommodate children in non-religious schools. 4 and 5 times as many applications for places available, I don't think that is hyperbole. How about asking for evidence before dismissing an argument as hyperbole?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/educate-together-takes-legal-advice-on-admissions-1.2264527

I don't think it does. It certainly illustrates an appetite for a broader range of educational styles than we once had, but there is a great deal to recommend ET schools, not least their inclusiveness. They themselves make no claims about being secular or promoting secularity in their mission statement, values, or charter, though they do mention all religious backgrounds being equally respected, which I think is a far more laudable aim.

This quote from the ET website seems to me to be offering secular education. They offer information about other religions and non-religious beliefs, but that is not the same as teaching it as fact.

Are we going to quibble about the definition of secular, or the fact that the site does not actually say in so many words 'we offer a secular education'? It does not alter the fact that that is what they are doing.

Educate Together schools provide a learning environment that is safe and supportive of the identity of every child. A child’s identity is affirmed and validated and this includes a religious or philosophical viewpoint. Children learn about the major world belief systems in our schools as well as atheism, agnosticism and humanism. The Learn Together Ethical Education Curriculum, which is taught in place of religious instruction in Educate Together schools, encompasses morality and spirituality; equality and justice; belief systems and an ethical approach to the environment.

Schools provide facilities for the teaching of faith after school hours. There is no faith formation within school hours and at no point are children separated from their classmates according to religious beliefs.

smacl

I doubt anyone could actually demonstrate that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed; I think that's pure hyperbole.

As per looksees post, there is plenty of information to support this. First hand I know quite a few people who have sought an ET primary school place and have been disappointed.

Absolam wrote: »

They themselves make no claims about being secular or promoting secularity in their mission statement, values, or charter, though they do mention all religious backgrounds being equally respected, which I think is a far more laudable aim.

They do though, from their site

Statement of Clarification: The Educate Together Model of Education wrote:

The members of Educate Together are its schools, who take policy decisions at Annual General Meetings. As such Educate Together is a secular, or non-denominational organisation.

Personally I think it is a great model in that it respects all traditions while allowing those who seek specific religious instruction the opportunity to avail of it on an extra curricular basis without imposing it on those who do not. Secularity does not interfere with celebrating diversity.

beauf

One of those schools I'm familiar with, and its not just the ET school that's over subscribed. All the schools of all types in that area are oversubscribed. The problem with local kids given priory over kids further away is feature of all their admission policies. I thought the ET operated differently, in that its based on when you register interest in the school not where you live. It was also popular for this reason as people not local have a better chance of getting their kids in the school.

I'm don't see the point of not giving local kids priority. Not doing this just creates gridlock with kids from all over being driving to other places. When the kid is not in school they are not near their classmates. Etc.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Just caught the tail end of Michael Nugent and David Quinn talking about this on the radio. Fair play to Michael Nugent, some patience putting up with that Quinn fella.

I heard the second half of it as well. Quinn kept going on about the nuns having an á la carte approach to catholicism, but still praying every day and still being "spiritual". Only towards the very end did he spell out what nuns he was talking about; n-o-n-e-s :pac:

Nugent did very well though. He had a short answer to everything, straight to the point. The interviewer seemed to take Quinn's side, just to provide some missing balance to the debate.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Not true. It is as often as not the parents who have to go through this nonsense that are creating all the uproar in the media

The parents who go through it i.e. baptise against their wishes, always get places as far as I'm aware. Can you provide me a case of a baptised child failing to secure a school place in Ireland?

I also have never heard of a 'we baptised against our will and got a school place, so we're grand really, but feel a bit regretful' piece in any media, can you link me to one please and thank you

which is in turn putting pressure on the politicians and slowly effecting change. To suggest they're at fault for playing the system on the one hand while attacking on the other is both incorrect and victim blaming.

The people who stick to their principles and will not baptise are the actual victims of the system.

The ones who conform and 'take the soup' as it were, are not putting pressure on politicians or anyone else. Quite the opposite, they are supporting the view that the present system is OK and that parents are happy with it.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

As per looksees post, there is plenty of information to support this. First hand I know quite a few people who have sought an ET primary school place and have been disappointed.

What if, like me, you live in a place where there is no ET? There is no admission list recording our disappointment. There's no school within reach to apply to and all the ones tantalisingly beyond are full anyway.

The local RC primary schools here doubled their capacity in the last few years, and another gaelscoil was built, but there was no survey, no consultation, no nothing for us non-conformists who refuse to speak Irish and worship the RC religion :rolleyes: :mad: Thanks a bunch, Dept of Ed.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

This and other similar articles demonstrate over-subscription. It also demonstrates the continuing difficulties of trying to accommodate children in non-religious schools. 4 and 5 times as many applications for places available, I don't think that is hyperbole. How about asking for evidence before dismissing an argument as hyperbole?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/educate-together-takes-legal-advice-on-admissions-1.2264527

I didn't say there wasn't over subscription; I said I think a claim that most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed is hyperbolic. If you have evidence that it isn't, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it....
There are more than 20,000 ET places in Ireland so we'd need to see something that says they have considerably more than 40,000 applicants I think?
I do note the fact that ET in your article have pointed out that they feel prioritising local area children could be a legally discriminatory practice, which might disappoint some proponents of such a system hereabouts... tying into the fact that they don't want to be denying parents who live outside the catchment area of an Educate Together school, their choice of school for their children (Hotblacks 'snobs' who turn up their noses at their local schools).

looksee wrote: »

This quote from the ET website seems to me to be offering secular education. They offer information about other religions and non-religious beliefs, but that is not the same as teaching it as fact.

Sure, it might seem so to you; no doubt it seems relatively secular to many, including me. But I was saying they make no claims in their mission statement, values, or charter about being secular or promoting secularity which means demand for their format doesn't necessarily illustrate a notion that the proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

looksee wrote: »

Are we going to quibble about the definition of secular, or the fact that the site does not actually say in so many words 'we offer a secular education'? It does not alter the fact that that is what they are doing.

I certainly wasn't quibbling the meaning of the word, so I'm afraid you'll have to do that without me. My point was that ET are more than just a secular counterpoint to denominational education; their own mission statement, values, and charter completely omit any mention of such an idea. I've no doubt that they've made plenty of statements and submissions where they position themselves at the secular end of the educational spectrum, though whether or not they do offer a secular education is obviously a matter of opinion; the likes of Atheist Ireland would disagree with your opinion, for example. Maybe we can agree they're secular enough for the tastes of some, if not for others.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

As per looksees post, there is plenty of information to support this. First hand I know quite a few people who have sought an ET primary school place and have been disappointed.

As per looksees post, there certainly is information to support the notion that there are ET schools, just like denominational schools, who are oversubscribed. Nothing presented so far rises anywhere to the notion that "most people who would like an ET school place will be disappointed", but I'm happy, as I said, to consider any evidence you put forward?

smacl wrote: »

They do though, from their site

They don't though; that statement is not from their mission statement, values, or charter, as I said, is it? But like I said, I don't think ET aren't comparatively secular, even if they're not sufficiently secular for some. Just that demand for their format isn't necessarily illustrative of the idea that proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

smacl wrote: »

Personally I think it is a great model in that it respects all traditions while allowing those who seek specific religious instruction the opportunity to avail of it on an extra curricular basis without imposing it on those who do not. Secularity does not interfere with celebrating diversity.

I think it's a great model too; it allows religious traditions to be celebrated and explored as part of their curricular activities showing that schools can respect diversity without being obliged to have purely secular education.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The parents who go through it i.e. baptise against their wishes, always get places as far as I'm aware. Can you provide me a case of a baptised child failing to secure a school place in Ireland?

That's a good point. So when you talk about these parents;

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The people who stick to their principles and will not baptise are the actual victims of the system.

Can you provide me a case of one of these children failing to secure a school place in Ireland?

looksee

Mod: Absolam, I responded to one of your posts personally rather than as a mod in the hope you would take the hint that you were heading towards waffle posting. Your responses are the usual examples of nit-picking irrelevance - especially this:

They don't though; that statement is not from their mission statement, values, or charter, as I said, is it? But like I said, I don't think ET aren't comparatively secular, even if they're not sufficiently secular for some. Just that demand for their format isn't necessarily illustrative of the idea that proportional demand for secular education greatly exceeds the religious/non-religious breakdown in the census.

If you wish to continue posting on this forum please keep your answers relevant and moving the arguments forward rather than attempting to bog them down.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What if, like me, you live in a place where there is no ET? There is no admission list recording our disappointment. There's no school within reach to apply to and all the ones tantalisingly beyond are full anyway.

The local RC primary schools here doubled their capacity in the last few years, and another gaelscoil was built, but there was no survey, no consultation, no nothing for us non-conformists who refuse to speak Irish and worship the RC religion :rolleyes: :mad: Thanks a bunch, Dept of Ed.

Between a rock and a hard place there by the sounds of it, and it seems a common enough story, reading this article. AFAIK, ET schools are set up largely on demand by parents pushing for them, the Dept of Ed don't seem proactive at all in this regard. Possibly too late for your kids but you could register an expression of interest to have an ET set up in your area or start a campaign. Unfortunately, everything I've read suggests that not only does demand for ET places exceed supply by a significant multiple, but that the demand is increasing at a greater pace than new places are being created.

Hotblack Desiato

We've been in contact with ET since years. Dept of Ed will not sanction another school here, end of*. It's a mature Dublin suburb so school population is not growing enough, and as I said the expansion of the local RC schools caters for the demand for places - provided as a parent you're prepared to hold your nose at the type of places offered.

We were lucky - we (not from a CoI background) managed to get Child 1 into the small local CoI primary when places were still available, and Child 2 got in on the sibling rule. This school was undersubscribed for years, now it's full to bursting and turning kids away - but not with children of CoI parents, just people who are seeking out the only English-speaking non-RC option.

They are nothing like as pushy about religion as the RC schools of my childhood, and are fully cognisant of their position as a minority religion within their own school if only protestant families sent their kids here, it would have shut down years ago. We are opting our kids out of religion but at their own choice, after sitting through it it's something they'd rather not do so it's not us pushing antitheism at them. The school is fine with this, all we have to do is send them in a bit later on a Friday morning so they arrive as church ends - lie in for everyone so win-win

We're concerned about secondary options though - literally there are none here. One large RC boys secondary and one large girls RC secondary, each run by a religious order with a very suspect past, and NOTHING else. We despise single-sex schooling as it's bad for both boys and girls and forces rigid gender roles and expectations on them both. There is an ET/ETB joint patronage secondary but it's a drive away - we're a little bit outside its official catchment area and lots of ET primaries further away from us will get priority in enrolment, so I'm not too optimistic there plus my wife would like to be able to get back to the workplace someday rather than spend another 8 years or so ferrying kids around, and as things stand nobody is going to college if they're relying on my sole income (I'm Irish and middle class, so I pay for everything and get grants for nothing.)



* all the 'so why not set up your own school' shysters can cram it. Without state funding, only lottery winners and barristers can afford to set up their own school, and the Dept of Ed will only sanction new schools in areas where unmet population growth exists, not because parents are unhappy with the ethos choices or lack thereof where they live.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We're concerned about secondary options though - literally there are none here.

We went through a similar enough situation with ours. Eldest got into an ET primary in second class after a space came up and youngest followed as a sibling. When eldest left primary there was nothing, and though we'd put a few bob aside to get her into a fee paying co-ed, she decided she wanted to go to the same RCC all girls school here friends were going to. She's got through it well enough as she's very academically inclined but even then she's had to take subjects out of school as they simply weren't available. She's a maths, applied maths, physics and chemistry nerd, and getting that combination was not easy. If you've a practically minded girl interested in woodwork or metalwork you might as well forget it, which to my mind sucks just as much as the whole time wasting on religion thing.

We were much luckier with youngest, and got into an ET secondary in its first year, which is just as well as the staff at the RCC girls school would most probably have her burned as a witch. It's not exactly local at 10k door to door, but the parents have organised carpooling as there are a number of kids travelling to get to the school from our area. On good days she cycles there and back which is about 45 minutes for her each way. Plan is she'll cycle more as time goes by and she gets stronger on the bike. The ET school and staff are fantastic, she loves the place, and it is certainly worth the effort to figure how to get to one if at all possible. It is also worth checking for vacancies during term as well, as we've seen a number of kids drop out of the ET school. For all that, the odds aren't great, and what places there are exist despite the Dept of Ed and our various governments, and are due to the efforts of the parents that want them.

ShooterSF

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

More census abuse:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/iona-institute-opposes-end-to-good-friday-drink-sales-ban-1.3045453



It doesn't matter if there is only one non-catholic in the country. It's wrong to restrict his or her rights because of catholic dogma.

Woah woah woah. I don't often side with IONA but you leave bartender's holiday alone! We get 2 guaranteed days off a year (non existent) god dammit.

Hotblack Desiato

ShooterSF wrote: »

Woah woah woah. I don't often side with IONA but you leave bartender's holiday alone! We get 2 guaranteed days off a year (non existent) god dammit.

Well isn't that a shame. Many other professions have to provide 365 days a year cover, not just 363, but you know they have annual leave and rotas and stuff... as do you. There's no need to make it sound like you only get literally 2 days off a year, we're not fools.

ShooterSF

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well isn't that a shame. Many other professions have to provide 365 days a year cover, not just 363, but you know they have annual leave and rotas and stuff... as do you. There's no need to make it sound like you only get literally 2 days off a year, we're not fools.

Life and death professions maybe Ah my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek. If I had my way the licensing laws would allow for 24 hour service 365 and no restriction on number of places serving alcohol. But thats a discussion for a different forum.

O/T 5 years ago I was the only member of my family (Mam Dad and Sis) to put down no religion as the staunch Atheist. This time all 4 of us marked no religion. And maybe there is a shift happening, was approached in confidence by two friends who were having trouble coming to terms with their falling belief in the RCC and religion in general.

hinault

ShooterSF wrote: »

Life and death professions maybe Ah my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek. If I had my way the licensing laws would allow for 24 hour service 365 and no restriction on number of places serving alcohol. But thats a discussion for a different forum.

O/T 5 years ago I was the only member of my family (Mam Dad and Sis) to put down no religion as the staunch Atheist. This time all 4 of us marked no religion. And maybe there is a shift happening, was approached in confidence by two friends who were having trouble coming to terms with their falling belief in the RCC and religion in general.

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

looksee

Mod: Hinault, please be more careful before describing claims as b/s. Please check the sample census form here: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/censusform_2006.pdf

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

..

Pherekydes

hinault wrote: »

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

Ah, Hinault, have you just outed yourself as not living here? Everyone here knows that the census asks the religious affiliation of every individual.

eviltwin

hinault wrote: »

There is a distinct smell of b/s from this reply,

The census form from 5 years ago, and last year for that matter, doesn't ask the number of people per household that subscribe to a belief/no religion.

There is only census form issued to every property.

Unless all of you have moved to separate individual properties since 2011 census and are completing separate individual census forms in 2016 census, your claim (above) reads as b/s spoofery.

Your claim (above) is b/s.

What's bs about that

The census clearly asks personal information of all people in the property at the time the census was taken. How else do you think the CSO get an accurate figure of the numbers of people who belong to the individual faiths or who have none

Do you even live in Ireland or did you have someone else complete the form on your behalf?

hinault

eviltwin wrote: »

What's bs about that

The census clearly asks personal information of all people in the property at the time the census was taken. How else do you think the CSO get an accurate figure of the numbers of people who belong to the individual faiths or who have none

Do you even live in Ireland or did you have someone else complete the form on your behalf?

A single census form is delivered to each house.

The census form asks "what is your religion" and it provides one set of multiple choice answers.

The census simply asks - what is YOUR (singular) religion.

The census does not ask for the religious affiliation of each member of the household present on census night.

hinault

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ah, Hinault, have you just outed yourself as not living here? Everyone here knows that the census asks the religious affiliation of every individual.

No : the census form asks only one question what is YOUR (singular) religion and provides a range of multiple choice answers.

The claim made earlier about 2011 and 2016 census answers are b/s spoofery.

hinault

hinault wrote: »

A single census form is delivered to each house.

The census form asks "what is your religion" and it provides one set of multiple choice answers.

The census simply asks - what is YOUR (singular) religion.

The census does not ask for the religious affiliation of each member of the household present on census night.

Are you one of those people who in the Leaving Cert forgot to turn the page for the last few questions?