All religious schools should be private.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

And I replied that it’s not much of an argument because the flipside is that for other parents, it does work, so where does that leave your argument that it doesn’t work because it doesn’t suit some parents? Dead in the water, doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks.

Tokyo

Mod: @one world order - we have other forums that cater to the discussion of people's religious beliefs. However, browbeating others with religious dogma is not what this thread (or indeed, this forum) is about. Please post on topic in future - further posts like this will be removed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I replied that it’s not much of an argument because the flipside is that for other parents, it does work, so where does that leave your argument that it doesn’t work because it doesn’t suit some parents? Dead in the water, doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks.

It doesn't matter whether or not it suits some or many or none of the parents.

Should religions be allowed to indoctrinate children using State education systems, yes or no?

Snow Garden

There is way too much religion being taught in the schools today. Way too much preparation for sacraments too. The whole communion thing has become grotesque. That will change as the recession bites.
The reality is that most kids do not believe in gods by the time they get to 1st year in secondary.
In a way it's more child abuse from Rome to fill children's head with so much unfounded nonsense. Let them take up a religion when they hit their teens if they wish to do so. Until then, let them enjoy their childhood without guilt and fear.
The next generation will sort it, the current generation of parents still have a little too much baggage and brainwashing.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether or not it suits some or many or none of the parents.

Should religions be allowed to indoctrinate children using State education systems, yes or no?

See this is it, you’re saying it doesn’t matter whether or not it suits some or many of none of the parents, I’m pointing out that of course it matters whether the education system suits parents or not. I’m not just turning around and saying “tough titty, system suits me, don’t care about you!” I’m acknowledging that the current education system doesn’t suit everyone, and suggesting that one approach is for the establishment of other patron bodies and State funding being provided to them in the same way it is provided to any patron providing education, whether that patron body is religious or not.

Obviously I’m going to say that yes, religions should be allowed indoctrinate children using State education systems, in the same way as any other organisations should be allowed indoctrinate children in their world view using State education systems. It is then the prerogative of parents whether or not they choose to send their children to those schools which are in accordance with their world views, beliefs or philosophy.

Because funding is calculated based upon the number of pupils in any school, the amount of funding any school receives will vary, and so the ET school with the gender neutral toilets and capacity for 1,000 students will receive more funding than the Catholic all boys school with 500 students and a reputation for academic and sporting excellence. Whichever will continue to be funded is based upon the numbers of students enrolled in the school because their parents choose that form of education their children.

I know which one of those two I prefer for my child, but I understand that it’s unlikely to be your cup of tea.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See this is it, you’re saying it doesn’t matter whether or not it suits some or many of none of the parents, I’m pointing out that of course it matters whether the education system suits parents or not. I’m not just turning around and saying “tough titty, system suits me, don’t care about you!” I’m acknowledging that the current education system doesn’t suit everyone, and suggesting that one approach is for the establishment of other patron bodies and State funding being provided to them in the same way it is provided to any patron providing education, whether that patron body is religious or not.

Irrelevant, because the options to homeschool and/or pracice the religion of choice outside of school hours exist.

Obviously I’m going to say that yes, religions should be allowed indoctrinate children using State education systems, in the same way as any other organisations should be allowed indoctrinate children in their world view using State education systems. It is then the prerogative of parents whether or not they choose to send their children to those schools which are in accordance with their world views, beliefs or philosophy.

Because funding is calculated based upon the number of pupils in any school, the amount of funding any school receives will vary, and so the ET school with the gender neutral toilets and capacity for 1,000 students will receive more funding than the Catholic all boys school with 500 students and a reputation for academic and sporting excellence. Whichever will continue to be funded is based upon the numbers of students enrolled in the school because their parents choose that form of education their children.

I know which one of those two I prefer for my child, but I understand that it’s unlikely to be your cup of tea.

Surpirsing when, in the past, you've always put paretnal rigts ahead of that in the State; but there we do indeed disagree. Ultimately, it sets a very, very dangerous precent.

And that's my last word! Thanks - have genuinely enjoyed debating with you.

One eyed Jack

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Irrelevant, because the options to homeschool and/or pracice the religion of choice outside of school hours exist.

Surpirsing when, in the past, you've always put paretnal rigts ahead of that in the State; but there we do indeed disagree. Ultimately, it sets a very, very dangerous precent.

And that's my last word! Thanks - have genuinely enjoyed debating with you.

The option to homeschool has always existed, and parents were never compelled by the State to send their children to a school or educational institution in violation of their conscience and lawful preference. When Catholic schools were not permitted under the Penal laws, they established what were known as hedge schools. These schools weren’t just used by Catholics, they were used by any parents who were interested in having their children educated. This led to the establishment of Catholic schools founded by Edmund Rice (I took his middle name as my confirmation name, glad it doesn’t come up too often now :pac:). The idea of denying people education means they simply established alternatives themselves. It was the later Government of the time that chose to provide for free primary education. They didn’t just say free primary education for Catholics. It was available to everyone.

I still put parental rights and responsibilities ahead of the imposition of the State, so does the Constitution, and it would be disingenuous on your part to try and argue that children’s welfare is at risk as a consequence of their parents choosing to enrol their children in schools which offer an education which aligns with their beliefs and world views. It wouldn’t be likely to stand up in a Court of Law either as while Article 42a does place an obligation on the State to protect children, it stops short of giving the State the power to jackboot willy nilly all over parental rights. Here’s a good analysis of the whole thing if you’re interested in some afternoon reading -


Children’s Best Interests? A Constitutional Question


I would see the dangerous precedent you refer to differently - the idea of the State having that kind of power you appear to wish they had, hasn’t worked out very well for society in the past.

Treppen

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I am not so sure parents who have the money to pay for private school want their schools to be so religious.

You'd be very very surprised how religious some wealthy parents are. If anything it can become a 'them and us' clique to maintain the 'old boys network'.

Hotblack Desiato

mikemac2 wrote: »

It was already proposed when Ruari Quinn was minister. 1 out of every 8 Catholic schools would move patronage. Even Archbishop Martin was not against it but parents and locals were and the proposal went nowhere

It wasn't 1 out of every 8, it was a specific area (Malahide) which had 8 catholic primaries and they proposed to divest one of them - there was easily enough parental demand in the area to divest two.

But the principals mounted a disgraceful FUD campaign - saying there would be no Christmas, no grandparents involved with the school (?!) and other ridiculous nonsense which anyone with any knowledge of Educate Together schools would know were complete lies

The local priests also mounted a campaign against it from the pulpit, for what that was worth.

So they managed to get enough confused / misled parents in each school to block any change. And the large minority in that area who want non-catholic education still have nowhere to go.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109832245&postcount=5026
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109840668&postcount=5045

Hotblack Desiato

dvdman1 wrote: »

I sent my son to a catholic school...Better the devil you know. Not an ideal situation but it pays some homage to our past...without the church education in Ireland would have been very rudimentary or non existant in some parts.

This is not true - or, at least, hasn't been true for almost 200 years.

Primary education has been state-funded since the 1830s - this is why they are called "National Schools".

Enrolment wasn't supposed to be divided along sectarian lines, but the RCC and Presbyterians insisted upon it and eventually the authorities caved in.

And with the small exception of the relative handful of ET schools, that's exactly the system we have today.

Treppen

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is not true - or, at least, hasn't been true for almost 200 years.

Primary education has been state-funded since the 1830s - this is why they are called "National Schools".

Enrolment wasn't supposed to be divided along sectarian lines, but the RCC and Presbyterians insisted upon it and eventually the authorities caved in.

And with the small exception of the relative handful of ET schools, that's exactly the system we have today.

Well there was the issue of funding, so there's also the viewpoint that the government at the time reneged on funding the full amount so 'parishes' had to make up the shortfall.