Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
All religious schools should be private.
Options
Comments
-
Ray Donovan wrote: »Yes, because in fairness primary schools have a specialist team of available teachers ready to supervise children who don't partake in religion!!!
Any chance you could join the rest of us in the real world?
The real world - in most countries doesn't tie religion and education. I'm sure with the money the church have this "specialist team" could be arranged easily - or move pupils form one class to another, or schedule the catholic indoctrination part to the end of the day, giving some parents the chance to collect kids early or -- insert any plausible solution here. But the problem isn't "what to do with the kids" part - the problem is why this draconian practice is allowed to continue.0 -
'Private' schools in Ireland are state funded, same as regular schools. The last thing we need in Ireland are more private schools.
That may be true, but if you are saying the choice is simply "Church run state school" or "private school" then thats wrong. What about state run non religious schools? or Private church based schools?
Flip the model - if you are such a devout catholic and you feel you must raise your child this way.. then pay for that extra service on top of the education and let (what I suspect the majority would be if given genuine choice and not just peer pressured into it, or going along with the most convenient thing) the rest of the population just get their children educated without the religion element?0 -
Ray Donovan wrote: »Yes, because in fairness primary schools have a specialist team of available teachers ready to supervise children who don't partake in religion!!!
Any chance you could join the rest of us in the real world?
You made this exact post already and I replied to it. Why are you repeating the exact same post again?
As for "the real world" once again you might want to check the real world rather than project your inner world out as if it is the real one. There was a circular letter send by the department of education themselves demanding exactly this of ETB schools. So who is not living in the real world exactly? You might want to contact the Department and tell them what world you personally believe them to be living in and that you know better than them?0 -
I don't see what religion has got to do with education at all (except of course maybe to study the different religions of the world).
Religious schools are established by religious bodies in order to educate children according to their philosophy or ethos. That’s all really. Education isn’t just about imparting facts, it’s about the child’s development. Our Constitution acknowledges this in Article 42:
1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3.1°:The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
3.2°:The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4:The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
Schools with a religious ethos are just a formal extension of the education that parents are already providing at home, and religion forms part of that education for those parents who choose that form of education for their children. The State cannot force parents to send their children to any particular type of schools, but at the same time in the interests of the common good the State requires that children receive a minimum standard of education (which is not defined anywhere, but is rather a judgment call based on the welfare of the child or children), which is one of the reasons why homeschooling is becoming an increasingly popular option among parents who do not wish to send their children to schools.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Religious schools are established by religious bodies in order to educate children according to their philosophy or ethos. That’s all really. Education isn’t just about imparting facts, it’s about the child’s development. Our Constitution acknowledges this in Article 42:
1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3.1°:The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
3.2°:The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4:The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
Schools with a religious ethos are just a formal extension of the education that parents are already providing at home, and religion forms part of that education for those parents who choose that form of education for their children. The State cannot force parents to send their children to any particular type of schools, but at the same time in the interests of the common good the State requires that children receive a minimum standard of education (which is not defined anywhere, but is rather a judgment call based on the welfare of the child or children), which is one of the reasons why homeschooling is becoming an increasingly popular option among parents who do not wish to send their children to schools.
Thanks, didn't realise it was worded that way in Irish law.
As someone without kids (so excuse my ignorance) it seems tho that there is often a disconnect and I get the impression that most people are not really pushing any sort of religion at home, and religion in school is just 'the way it always was'. I know maybe one family with children that go to church, for example.0 -
Advertisement
-
Thanks, didn't realise it was worded that way in Irish law.
As someone without kids (so excuse my ignorance) it seems tho that there is often a disconnect and I get the impression that most people are not really pushing any sort of religion at home, and religion in school is just 'the way it always was'. I know maybe one family with children that go to church, for example.
Well you’re not wrong, I’ve had discussions with parents who have chosen to send their children to a particular school because it has a good reputation either for academic excellence or sporting excellence or simply they went to the school themselves and they’ve done well in life, so they want that for their own children, and they don’t particularly care one way or the other about the religious aspect.
There are other parents then who just want to send their children to the nearest school, but don’t want their children participating in any of the religious aspects of the school. Some schools are playing hardball and making it difficult for those parents who wish to exempt their children from the religious aspects of the school (impossible to do in a school where religious education is part and parcel of the educational experience provided by that school) and some parents want their children to have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, but they’re surrounded by religious schools putting them in a fairly awkward position as regards their children’s education.
The whole mess is ongoing simply because Government aren’t willing to spend more money on education than they have to, the Department of Education are saying it’s up to the schools Board of Management to decide their policies with regards to providing options for parents who wish to exclude their children from religious education (and there are parents who are saying this exclusion is causing their children to feel... excluded!), while also saying that it’s the parents who will decide who runs the schools AND because parents themselves aren’t all that interested one way or the other in whether or not their children are exposed to religion as long as their children are receiving an education which they deem satisfies their requirements, whether that be academic excellence, sporting excellence or social interaction among a community which shares their values.
Essentially the whole mess isn’t going to be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction while all stakeholders involved are looking after their own interests and aren’t willing to take on what they feel is anyone else’s responsibility.0 -
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Yes, that is unfortunate, so we should stop.
That is the point of the thread.
You should stop paying taxes?0 -
-
Ah right,Zubeneschamali wrote: »No, stop using them to subsidize religions.
Fair enough - fire away.0 -
Advertisement
-
We shouldnt rush into copy other countries, not that all European or Western countries are secular. If the existing schooling system works, let it be.
However children should be exempt from religious instruction if they so wish.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »No, stop using them to subsidize religions.
Government aren’t using taxes to subsidise religion though, they’re using revenue to subsidise education -
4:The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
The thing is, everyone would likely be paying the same amount of tax as they are already even if Government stopped subsidising education, it would simply mean that you still wouldn’t achieve your objective. That is unless you were willing to subsidise education privately, and there aren’t too many people willing to do that while also paying taxes.
Truth be told I’d only love it if I didn’t have to pay any tax and I suspect I’m not alone in that view, it would mean I’d have more money available to choose to spend it on things I think it should be spent on, but that would mean then that someone else who is not as fortunate as I am, would be in an even less fortunate position because they never had much in the first place, which would lead to greater social inequality as the wealthy who could now afford to pay for whatever they wish such as private education or private healthcare, will be in a better position than those people who can’t afford even the basic necessities such as accommodation, clothing and food for their children.
You could suggest of course that if people cannot afford to provide for their children, they shouldn’t have children, but then what that leads to is a situation where as the cost of everything rises (and it would if all public services were privatised, to suck up all that lovely money going around), more and more people will find themselves in the position where they cannot afford to live, and there are very few people willing to provide for them.
Essentially, you’d be back at square one.0 -
We shouldnt rush into copy other countries, not that all European or Western countries are secular. If the existing schooling system works, let it be.
One could argue that if it's being used to indoctrinate children into a religion of questionable ideals, then it does not work.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »One could argue that if it's being used to indoctrinate children into a religion of questionable ideals, then it does not work.
It’s not much of an argument though considering the same argument could be made from the flip side - one could argue that if an education system is being used to impart ideas which they find questionable, then it does not work either.
It’s one of the conundrums faced by the education system in France where their education system has gained something of a reputation for it’s focus on philosophy. As an outsider I thought this could be something that would be of benefit in the Irish education system, but from talking to some French parents themselves who have been through the French education system, they consider the Irish education system far better for their children. And that’s just in France. In any country you’ll find people who aren’t long expressing their dissatisfaction with their national education system and Ireland is really no different than any other country in that respect.0 -
Surely the point is that we don't agree on this, so it should be carefully modular system. I have no problem whatsoever with schools being used for religious instruction after-hours, for example. The current system isn't fit for purpose because it was designed for a homogenous society with very few non-Catholics, and most of those clustered in Anglican communities that could be served by separate schools.0
-
Surely the point is that we don't agree on this, so it should be carefully modular system. I have no problem whatsoever with schools being used for religious instruction after-hours, for example. The current system isn't fit for purpose because it was designed for a homogenous society with very few non-Catholics, and most of those clustered in Anglican communities that could be served by separate schools.
You acknowledge that there is likely to be no consensus on the issue, making the point that from your perspective the system isn’t fit for purpose, and suggest that your way would be better than the current system. I’m just wondering how is what you’re proposing any better for people who suggest that the current system is fit for purpose, as it suits them?
If we’re agreed that the purpose of the education system is to educate children, then the current system is fit for purpose. Where the disagreement seems to arise in this particular context at least, is the accommodation of religion within that system. I say “in this particular context”, because there are other areas within the education system where people feel that the system has failed to accommodate them, such as the parents of children with differing educational needs (I have no idea who came up with the term “special” educational needs referring to integrating and accommodating children with different educational needs in a mainstream school setting, but they need to to take a long hard look at themselves IMO).
With regard to addressing accommodating religion specifically, within an educational context, I would propose that the State would fund the establishment of a greater variety of patron bodies (since it doesn’t appear the Patronage system is likely to be dismantled now or at any time in the foreseeable future), which would have the effect of offering parents greater choice in how they wish for their children to be educated. The parents could then send their children to those schools, instead of simply settling for current circumstances where their choices are extremely limited, and the Government and the DES can still say they are fulfilling their obligations to provide for the education of children, while also saying that they are ensuring that children receive a minimum standard of education. For many people it seems to be the form of education provided that they feel is simply inappropriate for their children’s development, but they’re putting up with an inappropriate form of education because for some people, they are of the opinion that at least some form of education is better for their children than none, or one form of education has greater overall benefit for their children’s development than another.
It would of course be a costly endeavour on the exchequer to radically overhaul the current education system and replace the current model with one that accommodates parents wishes for their children’s education, certainly it would cost a lot more than the current €10Bn per annum (and being cut back significantly year on year) that Government are prepared to invest in education, but that’s what it is - an investment! Education is unfortunately undervalued by far too many people and for that reason alone I cannot imagine that Government are too keen on investing any money in education when they can squeeze what has to be said is incredible value for money out of a dead donkey:
2016 - Ireland 'spending less on education than international average'
2018 - Spending on education has not kept up with rising number of students - OECD
I don’t expect an increase in investment in education in 2020, but where we might have saved money in the current circumstances, there is some hope that it might be reinvested in radically overhauling the current system. There’s a better chance of Jesus making a comeback, but I’m a believer in miracles, so there’s that.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s not much of an argument though considering the same argument could be made from the flip side - one could argue that if an education system is being used to impart ideas which they find questionable, then it does not work either.
It’s one of the conundrums faced by the education system in France where their education system has gained something of a reputation for it’s focus on philosophy. As an outsider I thought this could be something that would be of benefit in the Irish education system, but from talking to some French parents themselves who have been through the French education system, they consider the Irish education system far better for their children. And that’s just in France. In any country you’ll find people who aren’t long expressing their dissatisfaction with their national education system and Ireland is really no different than any other country in that respect.
Only if your argument is that there should be no fixed syllabus.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Only if your argument is that there should be no fixed syllabus.
I don’t get you PB?
In primary education the religious curriculum is decided by the patron body. In post-primary education the religious curriculum is provided by the NCCA. The syllabus are only guidelines for teachers imparting what is required by the curriculum.
Even then parents would still have the right to withdraw their children from participating in education in religion or philosophy in schools? We know from some parents experiences that in some circumstances there are practical considerations for both the parents and the schools, but I don’t understand what any of that has to do with the any requirement or none for a fixed syllabus?
A fixed syllabus as part of the curriculum would be helpful obviously as it would provide guidance on how to deliver the curriculum, but any syllabus would have to allow for some flexibility as opposed to being fixed like the curriculum is.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I don’t get you PB?
In primary education the religious curriculum is decided by the patron body. In post-primary education the religious curriculum is provided by the NCCA. The syllabus are only guidelines for teachers imparting what is required by the curriculum.
Even then parents would still have the right to withdraw their children from participating in education in religion or philosophy in schools? We know from some parents experiences that in some circumstances there are practical considerations for both the parents and the schools, but I don’t understand what any of that has to do with the any requirement or none for a fixed syllabus?
A fixed syllabus as part of the curriculum would be helpful obviously as it would provide guidance on how to deliver the curriculum, but any syllabus would have to allow for some flexibility as opposed to being fixed like the curriculum is.
If it could be argued that, "if an education system is being used to impart ideas which they find questionable, then it does not work either", then any element of the fixed syallabus could, theoretically be deemed questionable to a parent. At that point, said point either remains fixed, or the parents have to back down.
Say, for example, someone said, "I don't want my child bearning maths - it's against my religion!" - does the parent overrule the syllabus (in which case Maths isn't fixed) or does the syallabus overrule the parents (in which case article 42 is not being upheld).
Or, why should maths or Irish (or whatever) be fixed, when philospohy and religion is not?Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
One of the main fears an atheist has is the freedom to believe what you want. If someone is in charge of this whole thing and your held accountable, then this is way too much for you to submit yourself to, which would put a damper on some of the things you want to do.
You are therefore in a state of hostility to God as you reject the moral standards set by God. The biggest stumbling block in someone coming to Christ is their sin. Because you are in enmity with God you can’t obey God or love God.
It is impossible for a sinner to fulfill a love for God in his heart and so he is doomed. The only hope is God to give him a new heart and that’s what salvation in Christ is about.0 -
Advertisement
-
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »If it could be argued that, "if an education system is being used to impart ideas which they find questionable, then it does not work either", then any element of the fixed syallabus could, theoretically be deemed questionable to a parent. At that point, said point either remains fixed, or the parents have to back down.
Say, for example, someone said, "I don't want my child bearning maths - it's against my religion!" - does the parent overrule the syllabus (in which case Maths isn't fixed) or does the syallabus overrule the parents (in which case article 42 is not being upheld).
Or, why should maths or Irish (or whatever) be fixed, when philospohy and religion is not?
There’s no conflict between parents wishes and article 42 in your example though? It’s just an example of an awkward gaffe, happens in schools up and down the country all the time. In time it’s quite possible that there won’t be anything made of awkward gaffes like this, because it is hoped there would be more diversity among teachers who are likely to be more mindful of the fact that there are children in the classroom whose parents may not share the values the teachers may be attempting to impart as part of the syllabus or school ethos.
An example like this for instance -
Limerick school apologises for Charlie Hebdo in classroom
It would have been less likely to have occurred had the teacher themselves also been Muslim -
Diversity gap: ‘There are no Muslim, Asian or Indian teachers’
The simple reason mathematics and Irish have a fixed curriculum (and religious education and philosophy do have a fixed curriculum as exam subjects in post-primary schools), is because they’re not part of the National curriculum in Ireland. It’s a matter for the individual patron bodies to set the curriculum in those areas of children’s education.
If a parent says they don’t want their children learning mathematics, they’re likely to come into conflict with the State over it’s obligation to ensure that children receive a minimum standard of education. If the parents raise objections on moral or religious grounds, to state that they don’t wish their children to participate in SPHE for example, then they’re not likely to come into conflict with the State as the State recognises the parents rights as the primary educators of their own children, particularly when it comes to their religious and moral, physical and social education.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »There’s no conflict between parents wishes and article 42 in your example though? It’s just an example of an awkward gaffe, happens in schools up and down the country all the time. In time it’s quite possible that there won’t be anything made of awkward gaffes like this, because it is hoped there would be more diversity among teachers who are likely to be more mindful of the fact that there are children in the classroom whose parents may not share the values the teachers may be attempting to impart as part of the syllabus or school ethos.
An example like this for instance -
Limerick school apologises for Charlie Hebdo in classroom
It would have been less likely to have occurred had the teacher themselves also been Muslim -
Diversity gap: ‘There are no Muslim, Asian or Indian teachers’
The simple reason mathematics and Irish have a fixed curriculum (and religious education and philosophy do have a fixed curriculum as exam subjects in post-primary schools), is because they’re not part of the National curriculum in Ireland. It’s a matter for the individual patron bodies to set the curriculum in those areas of children’s education.
If a parent says they don’t want their children learning mathematics, they’re likely to come into conflict with the State over it’s obligation to ensure that children receive a minimum standard of education. If the parents raise objections on moral or religious grounds, to state that they don’t wish their children to participate in SPHE for example, then they’re not likely to come into conflict with the State as the State recognises the parents rights as the primary educators of their own children, particularly when it comes to their religious and moral, physical and social education.
Labels of "intellectural" and "moral" subjects is not really a fair differentiator, not to say objective: which category does Irish fall into...? And which one with phiolosophy fall into? And of course, religion?
So there is a bit a contradcition there. Prents have the right as primary educator, but the State can overrule. Doesn't sound "primary" to me.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Labels of "intellectural" and "moral" subjects is not really a fair differentiator, not to say objective: which category does Irish fall into...? And which one with phiolosophy fall into? And of course, religion?
So there is a bit a contradcition there. Prents have the right as primary educator, but the State can overrule. Doesn't sound "primary" to me.
Of course it’s a fair differentiator? There is the objective study of religion as an academic discipline, there is no objective study of individual religious belief. Irish falls into the academic category, but there are exceptions made for students with different educational needs. Philosophy is an optional short course as part of the Junior Cycle with classroom based assessment.
You’re making this more difficult than it really is in reality. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand that while the State recognises parents as the primary educators of their children, the State also has an obligation to supplant the place of the parents if the welfare of the child or children is considered to be at substantial or considerable risk. The State has this obligation as guardian of the common good.
(In reality how this works is the child is practically an adult before Tusla or HSE get their fingers out of their collective asses and act to protect children, but that’s a whole other thread)0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Of course it’s a fair differentiator? There is the objective study of religion as an academic discipline, there is no objective study of individual religious belief. Irish falls into the academic category, but there are exceptions made for students with different educational needs. Philosophy is an optional short course as part of the Junior Cycle with classroom based assessment.
You’re making this more difficult than it really is in reality. It shouldn’t be that difficult to understand that while the State recognises parents as the primary educators of their children, the State also has an obligation to supplant the place of the parents if the welfare of the child or children is considered to be at substantial or considerable risk. The State has this obligation as guardian of the common good.
(In reality how this works is the child is practically an adult before Tusla or HSE get their fingers out of their collective asses and act to protect children, but that’s a whole other thread)
And THIS is the crux of the argument I presented: the idea that a child being indoctrinated in a State school is at considerable risk..! Therefore, the "questionable ideas" argument falls as the family can be overruled.
Also, I said categorisation fo said subjects, not availablity; and I disagree with some of your cateorisations, but that;s another thread also.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
one world order wrote: »One of the main fears an atheist has is the freedom to believe what you want. If someone is in charge of this whole thing and your held accountable, then this is way too much for you to submit yourself to, which would put a damper on some of the things you want to do.
You are therefore in a state of hostility to God as you reject the moral standards set by God. The biggest stumbling block in someone coming to Christ is their sin. Because you are in enmity with God you can’t obey God or love God.
It is impossible for a sinner to fulfill a love for God in his heart and so he is doomed. The only hope is God to give him a new heart and that’s what salvation in Christ is about.
Just because a person rejects the moral standards set by an archaic book does not mean they are immoral. To think that a human being needs to subscribe to an organised religion to have morals is a complete fallacy. I would argue a persons personal moral standards to treat people with respect and dignity and live a good life are better than some of the morals taught in a book that approves genocide, sexism, intolerance towards peoples sexuality and advocates slavery the list is endless, I could go on. Denigration of handicapped people, death penalties.0 -
olestoepoke wrote: »Just because a person rejects the moral standards set by an archaic book does not mean they are immoral. To think that a human being needs to subscribe to an organised religion to have morals is a complete fallacy. I would argue a persons personal moral standards to treat people with respect and dignity and live a good life are better than some of the morals taught in a book that approves genocide, sexism, intolerance towards peoples sexuality and advocates slavery the list is endless, I could go on. Denigration of handicapped people, death penalties.
It means you are a sinner. Just to be a good person, treat people with respect and dignity is not good enough. If I put all your thoughts you had in the last week on a projector, you and everyone else would be horrified of what you really thought. And remember God can see your thoughts and the real motivations in your heart. God's standard is much higher than your sinful standard and that is why we all needed a saviour. Atheists are so against religion of all subjects in school because their sinful nature puts them in opposition to God.0 -
one world order wrote: »It means you are a sinner. Just to be a good person, treat people with respect and dignity is not good enough. If I put all your thoughts you had in the last week on a projector, you and everyone else would be horrified of what you really thought. And remember God can see your thoughts and the real motivations in your heart. God's standard is much higher than your sinful standard and that is why we all needed a saviour. Atheists are so against religion of all subjects in school because their sinful nature puts them in opposition to God.
A sinner in the eyes of a deity that I do not believe in, so I think I'll be ok with that. Could your god read the thoughts of the priests and nuns who abused children around the world for centuries? Did he read the thoughts of the nuns when they threw 800 babies in a septic tank or received money for putting children forward for vaccine trials or when they sold children to rich Americans while their mothers were shamed into leaving the country. What about the thoughts of the many priests that raped children in their churches? The standards are not as high as you think and the sinful nature you speak of is all around the Catholic Church. If only we had a projector so that we could see the priests thoughts maybe thousands of kids could have been saved from a life of misery post abuse.0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »And THIS is the crux of the argument I presented: the idea that a child being indoctrinated in a State school is at considerable risk..! Therefore, the "questionable ideas" argument falls as the family can be overruled.
Eh? You’ve lost me now. Where are you getting it from that children’s welfare is considered to be at considerable risk by their parents refusing to allow them to be exposed to ideas which the parents find questionable? Parents are considered their children’s primary educators, but the State has a responsibility as guardian of the common good to ensure that children receive a minimum standard of education. They’re not the same thing.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Eh? You’ve lost me now. Where are you getting it from that children’s welfare is considered to be at considerable risk by their parents refusing to allow them to be exposed to ideas which the parents find questionable? Parents are considered their children’s primary educators, but the State has a responsibility as guardian of the common good to ensure that children receive a minimum standard of education. They’re not the same thing.
It was my initial hypothesis.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »One could argue that if [the system] is being used to indoctrinate children into a religion of questionable ideals, then it does not work.
If the religion in question was Mormon, would it be considered to work? Or Jehovas Witnesses? Or fundamentalist Islam? Or how about being indoctrinated into a political system like fascism?
If an education system indoctrinates or allows indoctrination against the will of the parents, it does not work.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I am not so sure parents who have the money to pay for private school want their schools to be so religious.0
Advertisement