All religious schools should be private.

Ush1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you think religious parents should pay for their kids education, and pay taxes to educate your kids too?

lol whut?

Don't all tax payers "pay" for their kids education, regardless of if they are religious or not?

Geuze

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I guess we're not just talking about primary schools but secondary schools as well.

Yes this is true. Primary schools are mostly private but the state is still heavily invested in these schools on a regulatory level, provision of teachers wages, equipment and facilities etc. The fact that these schools operate in the public domain limits their ability to actually teach the faith as much as they might want.

What I'm proposing is that the state divest itself from schools that wish to stay religious so that the schools that genuinely care about this stuff can do it fully without interference from the state.

You mean the State should stop financing denominational schools?

What about multi-denominational schools? Like Educate Together?

You seem to be suggesting that the State should only finance non-denominational schools?

That would be a massive change.

I think it may require a referendum to change the Constitution.

I don't think it would pass.

Note that even though the RCC want to divest themselves of schools, the parents have rejected those plans.

cnbyz

There shouldnt be any religious school. Its only a book. Study at home. Sorry had to get it out

Geuze

Ush1 wrote: »

lol whut?

Don't all tax payers "pay" for their kids education, regardless of if they are religious or not?

One way around the paying twice problem is to issue vouchers in return for taxes paid.

You then use the vouchers to buy education at a public school, or the vouchers are accepted by fee-paying schools.

This has happened abroad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

Geuze

Sean.3516 wrote: »

.
What I'm proposing is that the state divest itself from schools that wish to stay religious so that the schools that genuinely care about this stuff can do it fully without interference from the state.

Will voters agree with your proposal?

Under your proposal, most schools will be owned, run, and financed by the State, is that correct?

Like ETB schools now.

I don't see a massive appetite among voting parents for most schools to be ETB schools? Maybe I'm wrong.

Ush1

Geuze wrote: »

One way around the paying twice problem is to issue vouchers in return for taxes paid.

You then use the vouchers to buy education at a public school, or the vouchers are accepted by fee-paying schools.

This has happened abroad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

If you make all religious schools private they will still avail of state funding.

The question is really about separation of church and state.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Geuze wrote: »

One way around the paying twice problem is to issue vouchers in return for taxes paid.

You then use the vouchers to buy education at a public school, or the vouchers are accepted by fee-paying schools.

This has happened abroad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

Every non-parent gets a certain percentage tax break perhaps? I mean, if people only want to contribute towards their own kids education, then it's only fair that those with NO kids should pay nothing, right?

Anyway. How come the Catholic Church is suddenly unable to fund its own schools?

salmocab

I would suspect that a large issue is that lots of schools that are under religious patronage are seen as well run and thus people are happy with them in the main. Most have at this stage very few teachers who are nuns/priests/brothers and the religion subject of years ago has changed to be more about religion in general.

Bobtheman

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So the majority of public schools in this country exist and have existed under the patronage of the Catholic Church. This may have been appropriate when Ireland was a culturally and religiously homogenous country. However now that our society is a lot more pluralistic it may not be appropriate.

The original purpose of a catholic school was to provide education in a catholic context. ie. Reading, writing, arithmetic etc. while also inculcating and teaching the catholic faith. The fact that the proportion of devout catholics in the population has decreased while the proportion of catholic schools in the country has pretty much stayed the same has been to the detriment of BOTH catholics and non-catholics.

On one hand non-catholics are forced to have their children educated in a school with an ethos they may not share. On the other hand catholic schools have been forced to water down their catholicism. The fact that they're state funded has meant they cannot really discriminate in who they admit which means that in order to serve a non-catholic population they have had to compromise on the extent to which they can really TEACH catholicism. Everyone acknowledges pretty much that you can attend a catholic school in this country your entire childhood and leave knowing nothing about catholicism.

Wouldn't both parties be better served if we were to re-organise our school system so that all public schools are secular, while all religious schools must be run on a private basis. Catholic schools might successfully achieve their mission in teaching catholicism TO THOSE THAT WANT IT.

Aint going to happen soon:D You are not realy familar with the sysem are you?:( Most schools are voluntary secondary-religious schools. They are not as well funded as VEC/Community /ETB-nowhere near as well funded. Thus to do your plan would cost millions more. We have consistently underfunded education. Secondly Religion is an exam subject at LC and JC . It doesnt ask you to believe anything. Just tests knowledge on whatever Religion you choose to study plus deals with World Religions.
Even If I was a non believer Id hesistate to go fully secular. Psychology -largely non scientific is treated as if was fully verifiable and has become a secular religion of its own. Same with liberal morality . We can see the results of that all over the place.
In my mind secular liberals are as intolerant as Orthodox catholics.
You are exaggerating the Ethos side-my school which has this Ethos teaches the sex education programme and has the odd Mass. Teaches LGBT rights.
It causes no problems day to day except with people with an axe to grind against the Church. I dont think you have this axe.
The real issue for teachers is funding. Connaught rugby club were given 10 million before the election. They cried and said they wanted 20 million. They got it . Meanwhile Primary schools which are chronically underfunded were given 1 million for a pilot scheme to give free books for poor kids. A pilot scheme!! Seriously not as big a deal as you think it is. Its important that RE is taught in the sense that to understand the world or how this state was formed-you got to know something about Religion. Not asked to believe. Just understand.

Its nonsense to say you leave school at 18 knowing nothing about catholicism having gone to a catholic school

McGiver

Geuze wrote: »

Isn't this already the case?

The vast majority of primary schools are already private, and always have been.

They are owned by Educate Together, the diocese, the Church of Ireland, the Jews, the Muslims, etc.

There are a handful of public primary schools, owned by the ETBs.

In what universe is Educate Together a religious school? It's a secular school similar to what we be the norm on the continent

McGiver

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I guess we're not just talking about primary schools but secondary schools as well.

Yes this is true. Primary schools are mostly private but the state is still heavily invested in these schools on a regulatory level, provision of teachers wages, equipment and facilities etc. The fact that these schools operate in the public domain limits their ability to actually teach the faith as much as they might want.

What I'm proposing is that the state divest itself from schools that wish to stay religious so that the schools that genuinely care about this stuff can do it fully without interference from the state.

Core primary and secondary schools should be public and state-run. Not NGO, Church or whatever run.

Giving private religious schools a free run is not a good idea in my opinion.

endacl

one world order wrote: »

Teaching the young about God is the single most important gift a child will receive in school.

While teaching children that some people believe in some notion of a god or gods is certainly important, I'm not sure it could be described as 'the single most important gift a child will receive in school'. While it is important that children are exposed to myths and legends in the broader cultural context, it's surely an interesting side note to a rounded overall education at best, no?

Mrs OBumble

McGiver wrote: »

In what universe is Educate Together a religious school? It's a secular school similar to what we be the norm on the continent

Ah, nope. Its multi denominational, and respects all faiths equally.

https://www.educatetogether.ie/about/values/


If someone wants truly secular schools, then need to pull finger and set them up.

NMHS

one world order wrote: »

It is harder to be an atheist than believe in God's existence. It is scientifically impossible to create everything from nothing. Some ungodly people have tried to push the theory we evolved from apes. If you question them they say the apes evolved from fish, that came from bacteria, that came from atoms that came from nothing. So the seas, mountains, animals, humans and all God's creation came from nothing, just some bacteria somewhere. Does this sound logical?

If one wishes to state as fact that “Something cannot come from nothing,” they must actually prove this to be the case, the Burden of Proof lies on the one making the claim. There are numerous issues that one would then encounter, because there is no logical reason why something cannot come from nothing (the absence of existence). What is there to stop something from popping into existence? Well nothing, because nothing cannot stop anything because it is… nothing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ah, nope. Its multi denominational, and respects all faiths equally.

https://www.educatetogether.ie/about/values/


If someone wants truly secular schools, then need to pull finger and set them up.

I've no problem with children learning about different denominations - they should learn about them - but actual religious practice should be done outside the schools. Firstly, it's not the schools job; and secondly, the actual church will do a better job of it anyway than a teacher who may not even be a practicing member of the faith in question anyway.

Guy:Incognito

one world order wrote: »

It is harder to be an atheist than believe in God's existence. It is scientifically impossible to create everything from nothing. Some ungodly people have tried to push the theory we evolved from apes. If you question them they say the apes evolved from fish, that came from bacteria, that came from atoms that came from nothing. So the seas, mountains, animals, humans and all God's creation came from nothing, just some bacteria somewhere. Does this sound logical?

How is some omnipotent being in the sky that refuses to prove themselves real logical in any way? Its so obvious a fairy tale. Your God is no more real that any of the ones other religions also believe to be real.

If you believe god is real then you need to accept he is a psychopathic murdering scumbag. At best he refuses to stop death and suffering, at worst hes doing it deliberately to get his rocks off.

There should be no religious teachings in school. A reference to them being a belief system could be mentioned in a general civics type class (which I think there is some form of already). If parents want their kids to be brought up in religion, theyre free to spend their time doing that.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've no problem with children learning about different denominations - they should learn about them - but actual religious practice should be done outside the schools. Firstly, it's not the schools job; and secondly, the actual church will do a better job of it anyway than a teacher who may not even be a practicing member of the faith in question anyway.

But the schools were established by religious orders for that very purpose? To educate children, and to indoctrinate them in the Catholic faith of their parents and the wider Catholic Church, or the “Catholic community” in progressive “community” speak.

Secondly, the actual Church does the job of education already, in both an informal way and also in a formal education setting.

The State saves a bundle by outsourcing the provision of education to education providers already providing the service, by funding the delivery of the National curriculum to all children. Some schools do not qualify for funding as they don’t teach the National curriculum (and that’s a whole other can of worms).

In reality, all the State is paying for is the delivery of the National curriculum. This is delivered in conjunction with the Patrons own particular educational model, whether it be the RCC, Foras na Gaeilge, COI, IOC, etc.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the schools were established by religious orders for that very purpose? To educate children, and to indoctrinate them in the Catholic faith of their parents and the wider Catholic Church, or the “Catholic community” in progressive “community” speak.

Fair point - I should have written "it's not the Deaprtment of Education's job" not "... the school's job".

Secondly, the actual Church does the job of education already, in both an informal way and also in a formal education setting.

The State saves a bundle by outsourcing the provision of education to education providers already providing the service, by funding the delivery of the National curriculum to all children. Some schools do not qualify for funding as they don’t teach the National curriculum (and that’s a whole other can of worms).

In reality, all the State is paying for is the delivery of the National curriculum. This is delivered in conjunction with the Patrons own particular educational model, whether it be the RCC, Foras na Gaeilge, COI, IOC, etc.

It is the State that sets said curriculum and exams and all schools pretty much have to (or should have to) work within this frame.

NMHS

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State saves a bundle by outsourcing the provision of education to education providers already providing the service, by funding the delivery of the National curriculum to all children. Some schools do not qualify for funding as they don’t teach the National curriculum (and that’s a whole other can of worms).

I don't understand. I thought the school buildings are paid for by the state who don't then own them and that teachers are paid by the state, am I wrong, how are they/we saving?

one world order

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is some omnipotent being in the sky that refuses to prove themselves real logical in any way? Its so obvious a fairy tale. Your God is no more real that any of the ones other religions also believe to be real.

If you believe god is real then you need to accept he is a psychopathic murdering scumbag. At best he refuses to stop death and suffering, at worst hes doing it deliberately to get his rocks off.

There should be no religious teachings in school. A reference to them being a belief system could be mentioned in a general civics type class (which I think there is some form of already). If parents want their kids to be brought up in religion, theyre free to spend their time doing that.

God has proved himself several times to mankind. If you read the old testament there has been a reoccurring pattern of people being saved by God and then turning away from God. Like many on here who don't want God in schools, they like their sin too much. To recognise God exists means they will be held accountable for their sin. This is why they deny God and want God removed from school.

ricero

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is some omnipotent being in the sky that refuses to prove themselves real logical in any way? Its so obvious a fairy tale. Your God is no more real that any of the ones other religions also believe to be real.

If you believe god is real then you need to accept he is a psychopathic murdering scumbag. At best he refuses to stop death and suffering, at worst hes doing it deliberately to get his rocks off.

There should be no religious teachings in school. A reference to them being a belief system could be mentioned in a general civics type class (which I think there is some form of already). If parents want their kids to be brought up in religion, theyre free to spend their time doing that.

Well I for one think its very important that there is religious education in all schools.

Kids learning about all the different world religion's helps to promote tolerance, inclusion and less racism and sectarianism. Its good they learn about different cultures and practices in Ireland and around the world.

The new junior cycle syllabus introduced this year is based around this and also includes non religious beliefs, especially humanism.

Montage of Feck

It would result in a two tier education system.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair point - I should have written "it's not the Deaprtment of Education's job" not "... the school's job".

It is the State that sets said curriculum and exams and all schools pretty much have to (or should have to) work within this frame.

Well that’s of course a different thing entirely. We know it’s not the Department of Educations job to deliver the Patrons curriculum, that’s the Patrons responsibility. We also know it’s the State which sets the State curriculum and exams and so on, and most schools work within this framework already. Those schools who do not wish to provide an education that delivers the State curriculum, don’t qualify for funding from the State, because what kind of an idiot pays for a service they’re not getting?

NMHS wrote: »

I don't understand. I thought the school buildings are paid for by the state who don't then own them and that teachers are paid by the state, am I wrong, how are they/we saving?

We’re saving because the people who are members of the Boards of Management do so on a voluntary basis. Now imagine how much the State would have to shell out if all these people had to be paid.

jimmycrackcorm

NMHS wrote: »

I don't understand. I thought the school buildings are paid for by the state who don't then own them and that teachers are paid by the state, am I wrong, how are they/we saving?

Historically, it was the churches who established schools. There was a partial element of state capital funding, but much of the money was raised by parish funds locally. The state has an obligation to provide education for children which is where the paying of teachers comes from.


The state saves money as it doesn't completely fund private non-etb schools building. There are grants but the community has to raise the money for these. Likewise, for private, fee paying schools that people love to give out about, the state has to educate their pupils just as equally as any other public pupils by paying for teachers. But the state saves money by not having to pay capita grants.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that’s of course a different thing entirely. We know it’s not the Department of Educations job to deliver the Patrons curriculum, that’s the Patrons responsibility. We also know it’s the State which sets the State curriculum and exams and so on, and most schools work within this framework already. Those schools who do not wish to provide an education that delivers the State curriculum, don’t qualify for funding from the State, because what kind of an idiot pays for a service they’re not getting?

Strictly speaking, no - the Department calls the shots. And if you want their money, you stick to their rules.

Now, that's NOT saying you can't develop your own ethos alongside it. It's saying that if you choose to do so - while providing a service to the public funded by the State - you have to provide a secular option for parents and kids who do not wish to be subjected to said ethos at the times you do so. You also provide your own instructors (again - this should be common sense - they'll do a better job) and agree to not discriminate with regard to admissions.

Geuze

McGiver wrote: »

In what universe is Educate Together a religious school? It's a secular school similar to what we be the norm on the continent

Please re-read my post.

It simply states that the vast majority of primary schools are already private.

They are owned by patrons like ET, the RCC, the Jewish faith, Protestant churchs, etc.

Geuze

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ah, nope. Its multi denominational, and respects all faiths equally.

https://www.educatetogether.ie/about/values/


If someone wants truly secular schools, then need to pull finger and set them up.

AFAIK, there aren't any non-denominational State-financed primary schools?

nozzferrahhtoo

one world order wrote: »

Teaching the young about God is the single most important gift a child will receive in school. So much learned in school does not stand as you become an adult, storing up knowledge in your short term memory for an exam that is quickly forgotten.

That is hardly a recommendation for teaching unsubstantiated nonsense about gods. "Sure its the best thing cause everything else is ****e too" is not really a useful approach to take.

I absolutely agree that an education system that often requires merely regurgitating facts is not ideal. The example I love myself is that children when asked can usually ream off the 8 planets of our solar system. Ask them what a planet actually is, or what makes a planet a planet, and they glaze over.

But none of that recommends teaching them absolutely unsubstantiated and stultifying nonsense.

one world order wrote: »

Some people don't want to accept they are a sinner and in need of salvation like everyone else. They hate God and hate the fact religion is thought in school.

It depends what you mean "hate god". It is not possibly to ACTUALLY hate someone or something you do not even believe exists. I only "hate" god in the same way as I "hate" the character Silas Marner. In that I can envision the character in my imagination as a representation and judge them morally from what I have been told about their character in their relevant work of fiction.

And I do not actually "hate" either of them. Neither this god nor Silas Marner. I merely judge their character as they appear in that fiction and find them morally and ethically wanting, and difficult to forgive their transgressions. In fact in school when I was asked by an English Teacher to write an essay on how and why we should forgive Silas Marner, I wrote my essay on why we SHOULDNT.

one world order wrote: »

God sent his son into this world to take the punishment for our sins by dying on the cross.

What a horrific fairy tale that is. Scape goating. A barbaric and outdated practice that I think our species could do without. Thankfully there is no reason to think the fairy tale true at all. And certainly any time YOU personally roll into a thread spouting this nonsense, you have not once offered a shred of evidence for it, or the existence of your god. Color me entirely unsurprised if this thread is no different and you pop in, and then wander out, without substantiating any of it once again.

Worse though your misrepresentation of the fairy tale is misleading at best. Your god's son did not "die" for anything. Said son is said to be apparently living in a state of eternal bliss and dominion at the right hand of said father. Sounds like the exact opposite of dying to me. You want a decent fairy tale, then find one where the son is OFFERED a state of bliss and dominion but to the fathers horror chooses the True Death instead. Then you can tell us about sacrifice.

one world order wrote: »

God and the devil are real, demons, angels and hell are all real.

<Citations Needed>

one world order wrote: »

It is harder to be an atheist than believe in God's existence.

Speak for yourself.

one world order wrote: »

It is scientifically impossible to create everything from nothing.

Who actually says that happened though? Why do you "something from nothing" whingers assume "nothing" is default? For all we know there might ALWAYS have been "something". You are making too many assumptions in order to push your agenda.

Which is interesting because "it was just always there" is conveniently the retreat point used by the religious to terminate infinite regress when applied to their god. Yet somehow what is good for the goose is denied the gander.

one world order wrote: »

Like many on here who don't want God in schools, they like their sin too much.

The problem here is that "sin" is just an arbitrary concept that you subjectively apply to anything you personally do not like. Rather than argue that any particular thing is immoral or unethical you merely call it "sin" and act like that is job done.

From experience of people espousing the things you are here, I would guess you find things like abortion and homosexuality to be "sin". Yet when pressed on any actual arguments against either you will likely have nothing more than appeals to your imaginary friend's opinions on the matter.

So contrary to your imagination the issue is not that people like me "like sin". Rather it is that people like me see nothing morally or ethically problematic with many of the things you apply that label to. And we realise that merely shouting that label at something, does not make it bad, wrong or evil. "Sin" to me means nothing more than things you are not allowed do in your particular club house as part of your particular hobby. And that's FINE with me.

one world order wrote: »

To recognise God exists means they will be held accountable for their sin. This is why they deny God and want God removed from school.

It is amazing how you religious people think you are psychic. Rather than let people like me explain why we do not think there is a god, you decide to invent motivations and agendas and world views on our behalf. In fact if we were playing theist fallacy bingo here I think threatening our eternal souls with damnation is the only thing you have not ticked off yet?

There is one reason and one reason only I do not think there is a god. And it is not remotely represented in your diatribe above.

It is this:

No one, least of all you, has yet offered me a single shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim our universe, or it's contents, was created or is being in any way maintained by a non-human intelligent or intentional agent.

Simple as. So perhaps keep your words out of my mouth, when I clearly have enough of my own in there already.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

So you think religious parents should pay for their kids education, and pay taxes to educate your kids too?

Badly phrased I think to make it sound unfair when it is not. We all pay taxes. Even people entirely WITHOUT children are "paying taxes to educate your kids too".

I think what such people want is that everyone pays the same amount of taxes so that our children are taught in a universal secular curriculum that is valid and relevant to people of any religion AND no religion at all. And where access to that curriculum is offered in a way that is not just slightly but ENTIRELY blind to the race, gender, religion or any other pointless arbitrary attribute of the child or..... lets face it more often.... their family.

If the teachers and/or patrons of a school offering such a secular curriculum want to THEN use the facilities and resources of that school after hours to facilitate any particular hobby in a extra curricular fashion, be it anything from martial arts to religion, they should absolutely be able to do so. And the children not interested in any particular hobby offered by the school can be gone home.

So unlike many atheists and secularists I am not at all against denominational schools or patrons or them offering whatever hobby gets them wet.

Bobtheman wrote: »

Its nonsense to say you leave school at 18 knowing nothing about catholicism having gone to a catholic school

Not sure how nonsense it is to be honest. I have noticed a couple of things over the years. The first is that when I show a Bible to catholics or other Christians they are shocked at how big it is. They have very often never held one. Let alone owned or read one. And they have been fed the same cherry picked stories from it over and over in school and church, they were convinced it was a small book that t hey had heard all of.

Further when I was obtaining and experimenting on their crackers, I spoke with many catholic about that aspect of their church. And huge amounts of them had no idea what the catholic teaching actually said about it. They could not decide if it was ceremony only, if a magic change was meant to happen to the cracker, or if an actual physical change occurred in it.

I guess it depends how anal and pedantic we want to be over the word "nothing". But I think it is very safe to say that many if not most catholics seem to leave catholic schools knowing next to nothing about the church or it's actual history or teachings.

Mrs OBumble

Geuze wrote: »

AFAIK, there aren't any non-denominational State-financed primary schools?

Non-denominational doesn't mean what you think it does. Google "non-denominational Church Dublin " to see examples of what it means .

In terms of what you mean, I don't know if any atheists have bothered their hoop setting up a school to teach their ethos. They seem to think that the state should do it for them.