Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?

evolving_doors

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

From the enrolment policies I'm aware of (and these are binding) it would then be based on who put their names down first. There's not 'think' about it. The policy is published and must be adhered to.

I think people are assuming the situation in parts of Dublin applies nationwide, but not so.

So you'd agree that it's wrong to give preference to baptised children?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

evolving_doors wrote: »

So you'd agree that it's wrong to give preference to baptised children?

?? I never said otherwise. Are you just looking for an argument for the sake of it.

The fact that most schools do not give preference to baptised children still seems to allude you though.

Grayson

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

?? I never said otherwise. Are you just looking for an argument for the sake of it.

The fact that most schools do not give preference to baptised children still seems to allude you though.

It's the fact that they can if they want to that's the problem.

It'd be wrong to have a rule that allowed white children preference over black children, even if it was never enforced.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Grayson wrote: »

It's the fact that they can if they want to that's the problem.

It'd be wrong to have a rule that allowed white children preference over black children, even if it was never enforced.

At the risk of repeating myself. Only if it is in their admissions policy, which is published. And they do not.

But, look, argue 'what ifs' and ' but but but' as much as you like. It doesn't change the reality of most of the schools in the country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

server down

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Grayson wrote: »

I grew up in the midlands. 30 years ago I don't think there would have been a non catholic national school within 20 miles, maybe more. Now I think there's an educate together in the nearest big town. That's still religious though. I honestly don't know how far you would have to travel to find a school that didn't teach religion.

You sure? There were plenty of COI schools years ago. 174 today (just did a search)

Skylinehead

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

But, look, argue 'what ifs' and ' but but but' as much as you like. It doesn't change the reality of most of the schools in the country.

Neither does the very premise of this thread. What exactly is your point here

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Skylinehead wrote: »

Neither does the very premise of this thread. What exactly is your point here

It was in reply to a specific point made to the effect that catholic schools discriminate by requiring baptism certs. It was pointed out that most schools don't. The 'what ifs' and 'but they could' scenarios began although they were moot.

But, look I'll leave it at that because reasoned discussion on facts is evidently not required.

Personally, I'd remove religious education from schools completely but that discussion got swallowed up.

evolving_doors

evolving_doors wrote: »

So you'd agree that it's wrong to give preference to baptised children?

Leaving aside the academic nature of this given Bruton's recent changes to school entry, is it wrong to give preference to sons of former students, something which is very common among fee-charging schools and a way to consolidate an old boys club and exclude people? How is religion as a barrier any different to birth - indeed, you could change your religion and you're in, but not so when the school is excluding by who your Daddy is.

Indeed, why can people be excluded from a school whose teachers are paid by the state by virtue of the school being fee charging? That's definitely a barrier to the entry of most students - but financial barriers also seem to be acceptable?

And what's this "rugby ethos" stuff, for example? Every student and teacher has to agree that they'll support the ethos of a school when they agree to attend/work there - despite, in the vast majority of cases, the Irish state paying salaries. Why should students and teachers have to subscribe to all those other idiosyncratic ethea in state-financed schools? Indeed, the fact that rugby coaches, teachers and others associated with a variety of extracurricular partisan "school ethos" stuff get paid from state funds is surely more favouritism and bias in the use of state resources?

At least the RCC is giving the taxpayer the use of its private grounds for its alleged "indoctrination". What are all the other groups giving the taxpayer for the taxpayer facilitating their agendas?

evolving_doors

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No no no.... what we definitely don't need is 'greater diversity of schooling options'. That just creates further segregation.

This 'more choice' argument is just wrong. We wouldn't do it for health.

So I want my child to have their appendicitis treated in a Hospital with a strong religious ethos! What's that about?
Or maybe a child has been refused entry to a hospital on the grounds that they're not baptised!
Oh what we need are more hospitals which cater for children of varying religions and none!
More choice will solve this.

Yes it ludicrous.

What has medical treatment got to do with religion?
Similarly, What has indoctrination got to do with education?
Maybe we should be teaching kids about homeopathy and healing crystals too!

Discrimination on the 9 grounds isn't allowed... except for religion it is.

Skylinehead

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

It was in reply to a specific point made to the effect that catholic schools discriminate by requiring baptism certs. It was pointed out that most schools don't. The 'what ifs' and 'but they could' scenarios began although they were moot.

But, look I'll leave it at that because reasoned discussion on facts is evidently not required.

Personally, I'd remove religious education from schools completely but that discussion got swallowed up.

I dunno....even if 1 school is doing it, it's relevant. Maybe worth pointing out that the majority don't, but it does not make the argument invalid.

jigglypuffstuff

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Bringing up a kid to believe in a God is a horrid form of abuse.

You realise this topic is done to death and nobody cares about militant atheists point of view?

Its literally worse than a militant religious opinion because the militant atheists go around babbling on about how religion tells people what to do....yet they are very vocal on what people should and shouldn't do

So not only is it wrong, its also hypocritical....

Job well done (Sarcastic clap)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Skylinehead wrote: »

I dunno....even if 1 school is doing it, it's relevant. Maybe worth pointing out that the majority don't, but it does not make the argument invalid.

I did!



/out.

Grayson

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself. Only if it is in their admissions policy, which is published. And they do not.

But, look, argue 'what ifs' and ' but but but' as much as you like. It doesn't change the reality of most of the schools in the country.

No, I'm saying a law like that is inherently unjust. If you have a law that allows discrimination then it's wrong, even if it's rarely enacted.

Grayson

pone2012 wrote: »

You realise this topic is done to death and nobody cares about militant atheists point of view?

Its literally worse than a militant religious opinion because the militant atheists go around babbling on about how religion tells people what to do....yet they are very vocal on what people should and shouldn't do

So not only is it wrong, its also hypocritical....

Job well done (Sarcastic clap)

I didn't realise atheists had an army.

Grayson

server down wrote: »

You sure? There were plenty of COI schools years ago. 174 today (just did a search)

I said RELIGIOUS. I put in caps, not because I'm shouting at the computer, it's because I want you to see that word.
COI is still a religion.

jigglypuffstuff

o1s1n wrote: »

No, it's really not.

Striving for truth and the answers behind life, the universe and everything is infinitely more beneficial to mankind and leads to society progressing and making new discoveries.

But it is

You use science to attempt to explain things...but science is a man made construct. its incredibly open to interpretation,and more importantly bias and agenda...so it explains little if nothing really

jigglypuffstuff

Grayson wrote: »

I didn't realise atheists had an army.

Of course you didnt, you have to be willing to jump headfirst into the realms of hypocrisy if you want an invite

server down

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Grayson wrote: »

I said RELIGIOUS. I put in caps, not because I'm shouting at the computer, it's because I want you to see that word.
COI is still a religion.

You mostly definitely said CATHOLIC and that was the part of your post I was responding to. I am capitalising CATHOLIC so you feel stupid when you look back at your posts.

(If I had your limited intellect I wouldn’t resort to sarcasm. It won’t end well).

A Little Pony

Deleted User wrote: »

Zebra3 wrote: »

Says a lot about people that they have no issue with kids being told that they'll burn in hell for eternity for doing certain things even though there is absolutely no proof of hell existing.

Oh for fúck sake. Just how old are you, or like many of the Papist-haters disguised as "atheists" do you just take all your stereotypes about Irish Catholics from traditional British Protestantism?

There's a strong argument against RCC control of Irish schools, and posts like yours will never be able to make it because all you give are anti-Catholic stereotypes which bear no resemblance to reality in 2017.

Why are you a papist? You might not like the criticism Irish people have on it but it is legitimate.

Grayson

server down wrote: »

You mostly definitely said CATHOLIC and that was the part of your post I was responding to. I am capitalising CATHOLIC so you feel stupid when you look back at your posts.

(If I had your limited intellect I wouldn’t resort to sarcasm. It won’t end well).

Grayson wrote: »

I grew up in the midlands. 30 years ago I don't think there would have been a non catholic national school within 20 miles, maybe more. Now I think there's an educate together in the nearest big town. That's still religious though. I honestly don't know how far you would have to travel to find a school that didn't teach religion.

That's what I said. I said there wasn't a non catholic national school within 20 miles when I was growing up. And as far as schools in general there were none that were non religious that I could think of anywhere near where I grew up . I grew up in westmeath.

btw, here's the list of schools in Westmeath (I'm from Mullingar). Notice the trend with regards to religion?
https://www.irelandstats.com/primary-schools-in-westmeath/

So where was I wrong? And please, don't stoop to trying to say I have a limited intellect. It hurts you argument and it sounds like you're trump.

SafeSurfer

_Dara_ wrote: »

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

From the enrolment policies I'm aware of (and these are binding) it would then be based on who put their names down first. There's not 'think' about it. The policy is published and must be adhered to.

I think people are assuming the situation in parts of Dublin applies nationwide, but not so.

If it applies anywhere in the country, that’s unacceptable. Very parochial to not care if it doesn’t happen on your doorstep.

Catholic schools are by their nature parochial.

It is an issue mainly in Dublin and large urban areas of high population where schools are oversubscribed.
Most parents want their children taught in religious schools.

Billy86

Rezident wrote: »

I'm a Dublin cyclist so I know a lot of people hate cyclists. Should teaching children to cycle be illegal, while you're at it?

If you only teach them to cycle and use it as a method of getting them to believe that cycling is the only method of transport while drivers, pedestrians, roller bladers etc are all wrong - then yes!

If you teach kids about cycling as well as teaching them to be a safe pedestrian, some rules of the road (and later on how to drive), teach them to use roller blades/skates etc and that each are different ways to travel that different people prefer to use, I'd have no problems with that at all.

SafeSurfer

Grayson wrote: »

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

?? I never said otherwise. Are you just looking for an argument for the sake of it.

The fact that most schools do not give preference to baptised children still seems to allude you though.

It's the fact that they can if they want to that's the problem.

It'd be wrong to have a rule that allowed white children preference over black children, even if it was never enforced.

Yeah, like allowing full term abortions even if they never happen.

Hector Bellend

How do you stop religious indoctrination?

MadDog76

Grayson wrote: »

No-one wants the schools to close. That's a daft idea. What people are saying is that schools should not be under religious patronage. It shouldn't be possible to be higher on a waiting list for a national school because of religion. And religion shouldn't be taught in a state funded school (Although I think it's ok for a religion to use school facilities after hours).

State funded but owned by the Catholic Church ........ so it's a case of either buy them out or thank them for the use of their property.

_Dara_

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Catholic schools are by their nature parochial.

It is an issue mainly in Dublin and large urban areas of high population where schools are oversubscribed.
Most parents want their children taught in religious schools.

By religious schools, do you mean Catholic schools? There was a significant drop in numbers identifying as Catholic in Ireland between 2011 and 2016. It’s still a majority at 78%. Meanwhile in 2011, it was 84 or 85%. That’s a big change in just five years. When you compare it to the ‘No Religion’ graph provided by the Census, one can surmise that even less than 78% of parents with school-going children are Catholic. Yet, what percentage of schools in Ireland are Catholic and Catholic ethos? Something like 90%? There’s a disconnect there. For many people, the local Catholic school is their only practical choice. But it doesn’t tally that they are all fine with that. Even if it was 78% Catholic in all age groups (and I doubt that it is), the two figures (percentage of Catholics vs. percentage of Catholic schools) don’t match up.

beefburrito

Hector Bellend wrote: »

How do you stop religious indoctrination?

There's no such thing.
The Atheists made it all up.
I'm in my 40's now and didn't absorb religion in school.
I was too busy playing hurling,fishing down the local River, building forts with my friends.
Thinking about my next adventures...

Religion didn't come into it.

So I can't see how the children of today are experiencing indoctrination.

Achasanai

beefburrito wrote: »

There's no such thing.
The Atheists made it all up.
I'm in my 40's now and didn't absorb religion in school.
I was too busy playing hurling,fishing down the local River, building forts with my friends.
Thinking about my next adventures...

Religion didn't come into it.

So I can't see how the children of today are experiencing indoctrination.

Well, if you didn't experience it, then nobody else could have.

Did you not go to school? Did they not teach religion in the school?

VinLieger

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

beefburrito wrote: »

There's no such thing.
The Atheists made it all up.
I'm in my 40's now and didn't absorb religion in school.
I was too busy playing hurling,fishing down the local River, building forts with my friends.
Thinking about my next adventures...

Religion didn't come into it.

So I can't see how the children of today are experiencing indoctrination.

So in that case you would agree religion as a compulsory subject is a waste of time and we should get rid of it and replace it with something useful like more PE or coding classes?

MrPudding

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah okay, so does that mean there is no fire and eternal suffering or they are just giving us the watered down version? And what does "absence of God" mean?

It means you don't have to spend eternity in sycophantic slavery to a needy, narcissistic mega-prick. Sounds like a win to me.

MrP

_Dara_

beefburrito wrote: »

There's no such thing.
The Atheists made it all up.
I'm in my 40's now and didn't absorb religion in school.
I was too busy playing hurling,fishing down the local River, building forts with my friends.
Thinking about my next adventures...

Religion didn't come into it.

So I can't see how the children of today are experiencing indoctrination.

Well, that anecdote is a clearly a smoking gun. Close up the thread, nothing else needed.

Billy86

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:



In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

MadDog76

Billy86 wrote: »

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:



In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

And so, because of your religious "indoctrination" at school, I can safely assume you're now a devout church-going bible-bashing religious nut who aggressively spreads the word of Christian God on a daily basis .......... yes?

MrPudding

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

MadDog76 wrote: »

State funded but owned by the Catholic Church ........ so it's a case of either buy them out or thank them for the use of their property.

Plenty of religious orders still owe the government money for the child rape they oversaw. Perhaps some of those properties could transfer to go some way to addressing the outstanding debt?

MrP

MadDog76

MrPudding wrote: »

Plenty of religious orders still owe the government money for the child rape they oversaw. Perhaps some of those properties could transfer to go some way to addressing the outstanding debt?

MrP

I wasn't raped as a child so is it ok that my children get to continue going to their State funded Catholic owned school please? Don't worry, it won't affect the amount of Thanks your post craves gets ...........

Billy86

MadDog76 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:



In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

And so, because of your religious "indoctrination" at school, I can safely assume you're now a devout church-going bible-bashing religious nut who aggressively spreads the word of Christian God on a daily basis .......... yes?

Unlike many who I went to school with, I am indeed not religious. A lot of that came from home though with neither of my parents being religious. And my older, severely handicapped sister suffering abuse at the hands of Catholic nuns who ran her school when I was young. I was a lost cause for that teacher before I even stepped foot in the classroom.

As I said earlier in the thread I'm fine with religion being taught in school, but not in the manner I was taught in secondary. It should cover all religions (and as someone else suggested, world cultures generally) as well as paganism and historical atheism, and use those as educational tools to help teach critical thinking and people's views on subjects can vary, etc. What I remember from school is it basically being "Christianity class".

andekwarhola

Looked like a crazy Saturday night in here alright.

The_Valeyard

Billy86 wrote: »

"The Atheists" - so is it safe to assume beefburrito believes in religious doctrine? :pac:



In seriousness though it varies from school to school (or even teacher). I went to an Educate Together primary school where we were taught it in a very unaggressive manner, only about an hour a week, and kids with different religions were encouraged to talk about theirs too. In secondary school though it was the complete opposite with a hard line Christian teacher who would give kids detention for questioning her insisting everything in the bible was 100% historical fact (citing blasphemy laws which is pretty golden!) and only ever brought up any other religion to show us a) they agreed with Christianity on 'point x' which proved Christianity was 100% fact, or b) if not then just to show how said religion was wrong, wrong, wrong on everything about life.

For you to have gone to an educate together school to a secons level school woild have to be a fairly recent thing. I refuse to believe a teacher or management would allow a student to be given detention for questioning a teacher about the historical nature of the bible. Seems made up to me...

Achasanai

The_Valeyard wrote: »

For you to have gone to an educate together school to a secons level school woild have to be a fairly recent thing. I refuse to believe a teacher or management would allow a student to be given detention for questioning a teacher about the historical nature of the bible. Seems made up to me...

You can refuse to believe something, but happened in my school too. Detention for a friend of mine, was threatened with suspension until his parents got involved.

Billy86

The_Valeyard wrote: »

For you to have gone to an educate together school to a secons level school woild have to be a fairly recent thing. I refuse to believe a teacher or management would allow a student to be given detention for questioning a teacher about the historical nature of the bible. Seems made up to me...

It would have been back in the 90s when they were still under School Project (I didn't go to an ET/SP secondary school - quite sure the secondary ones only came later after the ET rebranding), the religion teacher I had would have been second year and I can't remember but possibly third as well so 2000-01, or 2000-02. I took fourth year out and switched schools for 5th/6th year so don't know what became of her at the time, but yes it absolutely was the case.

My blind, cerebral palsic, mentally disabled sister getting treatment like suffering numerous injuries including a broken arm from being shoved down a marble staircase by a nun to teach her that she "wasn't able" to walk down them on her own, which if memory serves was when she was about 12/13 so probably 1995/96, had already long since put me off religion though, so it didn't really have much of any impact on me apart from being kept back after school on a few occasions for "misbehaving" by questioning the validity of the bible being unquestionable fact, because only one person is going to win when it's a case of teacher's word vs student's word.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

evolving_doors wrote: »

Most schools aren't oversubscribed so the baptism requirement doesn't kick in.
Where they are it can apply.

Example...

I'll pm you the school name if you like.

I'm a bit baffled by those who assert that 'it doesn't really happen that much'.
A wrong is still a wrong no matter how big or small.

WTF is a “Catholic” child? That’s a disgrace ED.

The_Valeyard

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

WTF is a “Catholic” child? That’s a disgrace ED.

I feel a lot of your posts on boards are a disgrace.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I feel a lot of your posts on boards are a disgrace.

Quote three posts that you feel are a disgrace.

SafeSurfer

MrPudding wrote: »

MadDog76 wrote: »

State funded but owned by the Catholic Church ........ so it's a case of either buy them out or thank them for the use of their property.

Plenty of religious orders still owe the government money for the child rape they oversaw. Perhaps some of those properties could transfer to go some way to addressing the outstanding debt?

MrP

The state indemnified the religious orders in 2002 because ultimately it was the state who oversaw the abuse.
The state allowed a compensation scheme for victims to become a free for all like the army deafness claims whereby one only had to prove attendance at an institution, not that any abuse took place.
What was estimated by the state to cost €250 million has cost over €1.25 billion due to state incompetence.
As usual it was a gravy train for solicitors who pocketed more than half of the investigating commissions total costs.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/q-a-what-is-the-redress-scheme-and-why-has-it-cost-so-much-1.3004438?mode=amp

The_Valeyard

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Quote three posts that you feel are a disgrace.

Well f*cking easy.


1) "Katie Ascough is beautiful. She can sit on my face and suck my fat hairy cock any day."

2) "Sue for every penny you can get, make up fake damaged to your child’s bladder and sue from a civil AND criminal case. Get as much cash as you can"

3) "Don't be a Jew."

4) "I'd let my son be bullied by the teachers into carrying big bags. Then sue the bejesus out of the teachers and principal for his "back injury"."

beefburrito

Achasanai wrote: »

Well, if you didn't experience it, then nobody else could have.

Did you not go to school? Did they not teach religion in the school?

Ah they were teaching religion in school.

But I didn't think about religion in school.

My grandmother who died in 1987 indoctrinated me into being a pagan,she was living off the land and thought the parish priest was a money grabbing vanker.....

I turned out ok I was far too clever in school to walk in the light...,so I spent religion doodling on my copybook.....

Thinking about when I get off school which pool I'll try for a seatrout....

beefburrito

VinLieger wrote: »

So in that case you would agree religion as a compulsory subject is a waste of time and we should get rid of it and replace it with something useful like more PE or coding classes?

Replace religion fck no,then kids like myself wouldn't be able to doodle and day dream.

Religion was the subject where we all feel asleep or felt like we weren't learning anything....

A class full of Messer's and rebels I came from.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

I'm atheist - indoctrination should not be illegal.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Well f*cking easy.


1) "Katie Ascough is beautiful. She can sit on my face and suck my fat hairy cock any day."

2) "Sue for every penny you can get, make up fake damaged to your child’s bladder and sue from a civil AND criminal case. Get as much cash as you can"

3) "Don't be a Jew."

4) "I'd let my son be bullied by the teachers into carrying big bags. Then sue the bejesus out of the teachers and principal for his "back injury"."

You know where the report button is then. You’re not a moderator.

MadDog76

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I feel a lot of your posts on boards are a disgrace.

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Quote three posts that you feel are a disgrace.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Well f*cking easy.


1) "Katie Ascough is beautiful. She can sit on my face and suck my fat hairy cock any day."

2) "Sue for every penny you can get, make up fake damaged to your child’s bladder and sue from a civil AND criminal case. Get as much cash as you can"

3) "Don't be a Jew."

4) "I'd let my son be bullied by the teachers into carrying big bags. Then sue the bejesus out of the teachers and principal for his "back injury"."

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

You know where the report button is then. You’re not a moderator.

Oooooooo ........... I think you hit a nerve Valeyard!!