Baptism barrier to be abolished (nearly)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It can certainly support secular schools; it cannot support only secular schools.

I disagree. It could do that if it wanted to, but the political will has never been there.


Also there is a middle ground between the two more extreme positions of

a) state support for denominational schools, (including by definition, state support for religious indoctrination and religious discrimination in admission policies)
b) state support confined to secular schools.


The middle ground would be state support for all schools that are generally suitable for all citizens (including many religious multi-denominational schools)

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I disagree. It could do that if it wanted to, but the political will has never been there.

I don't think it can do that without amending Article 42.

recedite wrote: »

Also there is a middle ground between the two more extreme positions of

a) state support for denominational schools, (including by definition, state support for religious indoctrination and religious discrimination in admission policies)
b) state support confined to secular schools.


The middle ground would be state support for all schools that are generally suitable for all citizens (including many religious multi-denominational schools)

As middle grounds go, it's not quite middle enough. You're still excluding any funding for schools which provide faith formation, which (a) I doubt is politically acceptable (which ties in with your view that "the political will has never been there") and (b) I doubt is constitutionally permissible. And it's also not a "middle ground" in the sense that it's at the extreme end of what is found in education funding models in other European countries.

(And I'd quibble with your claim that funding for faith-formation schools included "by definition" religious discrimination in admission policies. This whole thread is about a rule banning religious discrimination in admission policies, which will apply to faith formation schools. You can plainly have a school that provides faith formation but admits pupils without regard to religion, and we have many of them in Ireland.)

Frank Bullitt

https://www.buzz.ie/news/priest-slap-baby-ow-289514

Just show this video to anyone who is thinking of having a child baptised. Might help them make a decision.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

(And I'd quibble with your claim that funding for faith-formation schools included "by definition" religious discrimination in admission policies. This whole thread is about a rule banning religious discrimination in admission policies, which will apply to faith formation schools.

Well, for one particular religion anyway. Which is itself a kind of discrimination. Which is why the proposal may never get enacted, but we'll wait and see.


But I take your point that some state funded denominational schools have already dropped religious discrimination in school admissions.
It should never have been their choice in the first place.

robindch

Gintonious wrote: »

https://www.buzz.ie/news/priest-slap-baby-ow-289514

Just show this video to anyone who is thinking of having a child baptised. Might help them make a decision.

Impossible to tell what the priest was thinking, though there was at least one suggestion that, during the baptism, the priest gave a "confirmation slap" - a catholic religious habit which fell out of use a few decades back (and the priest does look ancient):

http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/05/11/the-confirmation-slap/
https://georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2013/08/reflections-on-yesteryears-confirmation-slap/

daithi84

As previously mentioned by commenters the state needs to provide some form of religious education, this does not mean that the only solution to that is the handing over of ownership and management of schools in their entirety to religious bodies. This also does not translate to that outside of religious education class time that the school and its operations have to be intertwined with religious ideology and constantly expose children to it (e.g. school prayers, communion & confirmation prep, crosses and religious statues on school grounds, 2nd highest class time in the world dedicated to religion). To me this goes above and beyond what is necessary. I certainly would not consider participation in religious sacraments to be classed in any form as education and our tax money and public servants are exploited in this manner.

The state decided what system the ownership and management of schools would take, they could've easily set up a system where the state retained complete ownership of the schools and still provided religious education. The current state of things seems to be a legacy issue which politicians never had the courage to correct.

Also to note that in Ireland people have a undeniable right to freedom from religion and that right is continually breached with the current state of the schools under the patronage system. Many children will still be exposed to religious dogma even once the baptismal barrier is removed.

Frank Bullitt

robindch wrote: »

Impossible to tell what the priest was thinking, though there was at least one suggestion that, during the baptism, the priest gave a "confirmation slap" - a catholic religious habit which fell out of use a few decades back (and the priest does look ancient):

http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2012/05/11/the-confirmation-slap/
https://georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2013/08/reflections-on-yesteryears-confirmation-slap/

Confirmation slap my arse, it was wrong then and its wrong now. If that had happened in Ireland he would have been receiving one himself.

Hotblack Desiato

daithi84 wrote: »

As previously mentioned by commenters the state needs to provide some form of religious education

Why though? "The constitution/law says so" is not in itself a good reason and they can be changed.

4068ac1elhodqr

Gintonious wrote: »

Confirmation slap my arse, it was wrong then and its wrong now. If that had happened in Ireland he would have been receiving one himself.

Shocking stuff, likely he's still working away in France, even after this clear case of 'gross misconduct in workplace' and 'civil assault'. Not a gentle slap neither, then continues to hold by the neck.

Pile of excuses likely to follow e.g. had a headache, banter, old school habit, tradition etc.



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/priest-slaps-baby-hits-child-france-child-abuse-church-a8410256.html

daithi84

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why though? "The constitution/law says so" is not in itself a good reason and they can be changed.

Oh here im completely against the state being used as a method of conscription for any religion. In my opinion religion should only be taught academically, any religious formation should be completely banned and parents should go to their own church to partake in it if they wish.

As i said in my previous comment, including religious formation as 'education' is a serious stretch and by extension handing ownership and management of schools to religious organisations is not constitutionally required, that was the states choice, not a requirement and one that is a legacy issue and should have been rectified decades ago.

recedite

Gintonious wrote: »

https://www.buzz.ie/news/priest-slap-baby-ow-289514
Just show this video to anyone who is thinking of having a child baptised. Might help them make a decision.

There's a lot in this apart from the slap.
Priest starts off with a reluctant youngster, decides to use shock and awe to assert his authority. You can see his grip on the child's face is too tight and his voice too loud.
Youngster cries out to his parents for help, but to no avail. At this point they are still willing to defer to the authority of the priest, even though they don't like what he is doing.

At 15 seconds the child delivers his own lightning quick right hook to the priests face (fair play to him).
Enraged priest now almost shouting his prayers, slaps the child to put him back in his place. But then realising the adults are now on the point of rebelling, he pretends to hug the child. But really he has the child in a domineering headlock.
Now bearded guy (presumably dad) has had enough, and takes back the child. Priest tries to hold onto the child, but he has lost control of the situation. And probably lost his flock.



The whole episode is a mini allegory for the role of "The Church" in society, past and present.

robindch

Gintonious wrote: »

Confirmation slap my arse, it was wrong then and its wrong now.

Looking at the translation and the video on a desktop instead of mobile, yes, that's a good hard slap from the priest - though the kid does manage a solid right-hook first. All in all, a fairly sordid event.

Still can't get over a natural suspicion of any video which starts a few seconds before some flare-up, documents the fallout, is shared to social media, then ignites a flamefest.

Hotblack Desiato

daithi84 wrote: »

In my opinion religion should only be taught academically

Yes but why even that. We don't teach mythology in every primary and secondary school year. If you want to study it you can do it at third level.

daithi84

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes but why even that. We don't teach mythology in every primary and secondary school year. If you want to study it you can do it at third level.

We actually do teach Irish mythology in schools. I remember learning about the children of lir and Cúchulainn in primary school and then again in irish class in secondary.

I do believe knowledge of all religions objectively should be thought in schools. Obviously not from a angle of this one is right and the other is wrong, you are all going hell approach! Now this would not require hours of wasted class time a week to provide. IMO the time wasted on religion in schools should be used to teach kids languages. Our record for foreign languages is appalling.

4068ac1elhodqr

robindch wrote: »

Looking at the translation and the video on a desktop instead of mobile, yes, that's a good hard slap from the priest - though the kid does manage a solid right-hook first. All in all, a fairly sordid event.

Still can't get over a natural suspicion of any video which starts a few seconds before some flare-up, documents the fallout, is shared to social media, then ignites a flamefest.

The 'kid' is barely an 'infant' with little or no self-control over any natural physical reactive responses, of which 'a solid right hook' is not an appropriate description, it's not an MMA fighter.

No 'suspicion'. It is what it is, clearly an assault by a priest.

In any other profession or walk of life he wouldn't get away with that, to enjoy a forced retirement on full pension in Champeaux.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/22/french-priest-suspended-video-slapping-baby-goes-viral/

realdanbreen

seamus wrote: »

I'll believe this when I see it. When the bishops get their teeth into it by proxy of the catholic TDs, we'll see what comes out the other side.

What about the atheist TD's like Ruari Quinn and Michael D, although they kept it pretty much under wraps until they retired/ went out to grass in the phoenix park.

expectationlost

realdanbreen wrote: »

What about the atheist TD's like Ruari Quinn and Michael D, although they kept it pretty much under wraps until they retired/ went out to grass in the phoenix park.

Presidential debate Michael D Higgins says "yes I'm a believer", its myth that he is atheist https://www.rte.ie/news/player/prime-time/2011/1012/ at 15 minutes

don't get the impression Ruari Quinn hid not beleiving in God, its not something he explicitly talked about often though.

lazygal

realdanbreen wrote: »

What about the atheist TD's like Ruari Quinn and Michael D, although they kept it pretty much under wraps until they retired/ went out to grass in the phoenix park.

Quinn was a total hypocrite. Sent his own son to Blackrock College, one of the most religious, elitist schools in the country.

evolving_doors

lazygal wrote: »

Quinn was a total hypocrite. Sent his own son to Blackrock College, one of the most religious, elitist schools in the country.

That had very little to do with religion.
But champagne socialism all the same.

realdanbreen

evolving_doors wrote: »

That had very little to do with religion.
But champagne socialism all the same.

Sure most of the top brass in the unions educate their kids in private schools.

Hotblack Desiato

daithi84 wrote: »

We actually do teach Irish mythology in schools.

If the teacher is bothered. Not compulsory part of the curriculum afaik.

I do believe knowledge of all religions objectively should be thought in schools.

And once again I ask.. why?

And given that there are ~30,000 religions in the world, which ones are you going to include and exclude?

daithi84

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If the teacher is bothered. Not compulsory part of the curriculum afaik.



And once again I ask.. why?

And given that there are ~30,000 religions in the world, which ones are you going to include and exclude?

Well when i was in primary school is was compulsory, not sure about now. Difference between the way we were taught religion and mythology is that they admitted mythology were fairy tales unlike religion.

Why, because religion exists in the world and children should be taught objectively from a point of non bias about their existence. I am extremely anti organised religion but ignoring them will not make them go away. I would teach about the major ones for a start and how they have influenced the world politically (maybe this can be done at secondary level). I remember learning about Egyptian, Roman and Greek gods as part of history.

It is interesting to note the large amount of atheists, agnostics or non-practising Catholics our hijacked school system creates.

Hotblack Desiato

daithi84 wrote: »

I would teach about the major ones for a start and how they have influenced the world politically (maybe this can be done at secondary level).

I can see the justification for that, but also endless complaints. Religious parents complaining that "their" one isn't given enough prominence, non-religious parents complaining about bias from the patron, or that it's a waste of time.

I remember learning about Egyptian, Roman and Greek gods as part of history.

Never a word mentioned about any non-christian god during my school days.

Yes the current system creates a lot of non-believers, which just makes it even more of a waste of the state's resources! (Although if it was effective, I'd be complaining about that too!)

evolving_doors

daithi84 wrote: »

Well when i was in primary school is was compulsory, not sure about now. Difference between the way we were taught religion and mythology is that they admitted mythology were fairy tales unlike religion.

Why, because religion exists in the world and children should be taught objectively from a point of non bias about their existence. I am extremely anti organised religion but ignoring them will not make them go away. I would teach about the major ones for a start and how they have influenced the world politically (maybe this can be done at secondary level). I remember learning about Egyptian, Roman and Greek gods as part of history.

It is interesting to note the large amount of atheists, agnostics or non-practising Catholics our hijacked school system creates.

Would you also advocate for the teaching about homeopathy, angels, Crystal healing etc?

daithi84

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I can see the justification for that, but also endless complaints. Religious parents complaining that "their" one isn't given enough prominence, non-religious parents complaining about bias from the patron, or that it's a waste of time.

I wouldn't envisage complaints since religious instruction would be removed and provided solely by whatever religious organisation they wish externally to the school system. I dont agree with state schools having patrons and an ethos etc etc, secular is the way forward. All hypothetical wishing on my part of course.

daithi84

evolving_doors wrote: »

Would you also advocate for the teaching about homeopathy, angels, Crystal healing etc?

Not seeing the equivalence here!

smacl

evolving_doors wrote: »

Would you also advocate for the teaching about homeopathy, angels, Crystal healing etc?

As part of an exercise on critical thinking in a world flooded with fake news it would actually make a lot of sense. Being able to distinguish between faith based beliefs of any kind, unsupported assertions, deliberate misinformation and objectively demonstrable fact is a useful life skill. This doesn't involve knocking the faith based belief, merely understanding it for what it is.

Hotblack Desiato

daithi84 wrote: »

I wouldn't envisage complaints since religious instruction would be removed and provided solely by whatever religious organisation they wish externally to the school system.

Yeah but it was the religious education syllabus leading to complaints that I was thinking of.

I dont agree with state schools having patrons and an ethos etc etc, secular is the way forward. All hypothetical wishing on my part of course.

Me neither but we are a very long way off that unfortunately.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

This doesn't involve knocking the faith based belief, merely understanding it for what it is.

Understanding it for what it is could only lead to more complaints from the believers

evolving_doors

daithi84 wrote: »

Not seeing the equivalence here!

daithi84 wrote: »

...because religion exists in the world and children should be taught objectively from a point of non bias about their existence. I am extremely anti organised religion but ignoring them will not make them go away.

E.g. Just replace the word religion with Homeopathy.

because homeopathy exists in the world and children should be taught objectively from a point of non bias about its existence. I am extremely anti organised homeopathy but ignoring them will not make them go away.

What's the difference, both are belief systems?

evolving_doors

smacl wrote: »

As part of an exercise on critical thinking in a world flooded with fake news it would actually make a lot of sense. Being able to distinguish between faith based beliefs of any kind, unsupported assertions, deliberate misinformation and objectively demonstrable fact is a useful life skill. This doesn't involve knocking the faith based belief, merely understanding it for what it is.

Ok, if I'm understanding this correctly you'd be happy to include religion along with homeopathy, cold reading, angel whispering, crystal healing and ear candling. Or maybe put all those under the subject of religion.
Would this be your view?

daithi84

evolving_doors wrote: »

Ok, if I'm understanding this correctly you'd be happy to include religion along with homeopathy, cold reading, angel whispering, crystal healing and ear candling. Or maybe put all those under the subject of religion.
Would this be your view?

I get where you are coming from. My suggestion comes from a place of more 'know ones enemy'. A lack of knowledge about religion and its devastating effects leaves a young mind without knowledge on the topic very susceptible.

smacl

evolving_doors wrote: »

Ok, if I'm understanding this correctly you'd be happy to include religion along with homeopathy, cold reading, angel whispering, crystal healing and ear candling. Or maybe put all those under the subject of religion.
Would this be your view?

Apologies for the late reply, just back from tech free hols. I'd certainly advocate applying the principles of critical thinking to any subject, and would tend to place the likes of homeopathy etc... along with religion as belief systems. Of course this potentially falls foul of religious instruction, but perhaps this is where we need to distinguish between faith based belief and what is objectively demonstrable with a high degree of confidence. This creates a space where multiple belief systems can co-exist in the same space on the basis that different people can hold differing and often conflicting beliefs, which are all essentially subjective. Once you assert something is an objective fact, whether it be the notion of putting a breeding pair of every land based animal on the planet in a boat or the notion that a sugar pill with no molecules of the active ingredient will cure what ails you, that assertion should be open to criticism with the burden of proof lying with the person making the assertion. If, on the other hand, someone says that 'this is what i believe', their faith should be acknowledged and accepted until such time as they try to force it on others. Pretty basic secularism really, freedom of religion and freedom from religion. And homeopathy, angel whispering, or whatever else floats your boat.

As for religious instruction in publicly funded schools, I think at the very least it should be an optional subject at all levels where there is sufficient demand.