Raising your children concerning religion

OfflerCrocGod

RainyDay wrote:

Come back to me when you have your own kids and you're faced with compromising your children's education to accomodate state-sponsored religious discrimination.

What discrimination? Who cares if your kid is christened or not? I am honestly lost as to how your child would be discriminated againts.

causal

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

What discrimination? Who cares if your kid is christened or not? I am honestly lost as to how your child would be discriminated againts.

The discrimination is real. And it's the school admission board who care if your kid is christened or not:

ArthurDent wrote:

And to answer the op - yes the religion of your child can directly effect schools you can choose. There is a deregation in equal status acts that allows denominational schools to descriminate against those who are not of that religion when offering school places.

And in case there's any doubt, here is an extract from my local RC primary school enrolment procedure:

Enrolment
<snip>
When demand exceeds supply of places in Junior Infants classes priority is given to the eldest catholic children resident in the parish of XXXXXX and to siblings of pupils already enrolled in YYYYYY [the school]

But remember, we're all created equal :rolleyes:

causal

PS - I only used an RC school as an example but this practice applies to other denominational schools too.

loyatemu

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

What discrimination? Who cares if your kid is christened or not? I am honestly lost as to how your child would be discriminated againts.

if your child is not baptised there is a very good chance they will not get into any local primary school (parish members get priority). non-denominational schools are thin on the ground, and often subsisting in temporary accomodation and poor facilities.

The previous suggestion that you start your own educate together school is all very well but it should be possible to get an education for your child without having to start your own school.

RainyDay

Thanks to Causal & Loyatemu for explaining the difficulties inherent in the current structures and legislation. Why should any state funded institution be able to discriminate based on religion in this way?

CJhaughey

RainyDay wrote:

Why should any state funded institution be able to discriminate based on religion in this way?

Because we live in a non-secular state.

causal

CJhaughey wrote:

Because we live in a non-secular state.

Actually, we live in a secular state - i.e. civil laws take precedence over religious laws.

In this case [children & school], the civil laws permit religious discrimination; but that would be irrelevant if the religious denominations didn't practice it.
Unfortunately they do, I'm curious if this discrimination is part of religious law, and if not then where is it rooted?
I'm also curious what justification is given by the various religious denominations for this discrimination.
I was of the understanding that most religious denominations were inclusive, not exclusive.

causal

loyatemu

the denominational schools do not exclude children of other\no religion they just give priority to children of their denomination.

they generally have criteria to detirmine who gets priority - eg a catholic school might first admit catholics from the local parish, followed by catholics from other parishes, followed by non-catholics from the local area. As schools fill up very quickly, if you are not religious you have very little chance of getting your children into the local religious school.

ArthurDent

RainyDay wrote:

Why should any state funded institution be able to discriminate based on religion in this way?

It's certainly something that Educate Together has been asking too....
http://www.educatetogether.ie/2_campaigns/humanrightsandirished.html

Nevyn

Yes but unfortunatly they dont get the support they should have.

causal

loyatemu wrote:

the denominational schools do not exclude children of other\no religion they just give priority to children of their denomination.

That's not entirely correct.
They do give priority to children of their own religion, but consequently they will exclude children of other\no religion if necessary.

So while it's not total exclusion, it is conditional exclusion; in either case it is discrimination.

causal

CJhaughey

causal wrote:

Actually, we live in a secular state - i.e. civil laws take precedence over religious laws.


causal

I would beg to differ , this link explains it a little better.

causal

CJhaughey wrote:

I would beg to differ , this link explains it a little better.

That link reinforces the fact we're a secular state, it says:

A secular state is a state with no state religion and in which the state is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices.

Thus, we are a secular state, since there is no state religion in Ireland:

From http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24414.htm

The Constitution prohibits promotion of one religion over another and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, and the Government does not restrict the teaching or practice of any faith. There is no state religion, and there is no discrimination against nontraditional religious groups. There is no legal requirement that religious groups or organizations register with the Government, nor is there any formal mechanism for government recognition of a religion or religious group.

From http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Irish_Free_State

State religion none. State prohibited from endowing any religion in constitution

From http://www.emi-premier.co.uk/commonground/notes/facts.html

There is no state religion in either jurisdiction, though most people on the island profess one version or other of the Christian faiths.

causal

CJhaughey

If the state is neutral how come the state broadcaster RTE plays the Angelus? Surely they should play nothing?
I still do not accept the separation of church and state has happened fully.

causal

CJhaughey wrote:

If the state is neutral how come the state broadcaster RTE plays the Angelus? Surely they should play nothing?

Why not ask RTE?

I still do not accept the separation of church and state has happened fully.

Perhaps, but that's not what we were discussing. Recall your original statement:

Because we live in a non-secular state.

In response to that I made the point that we do live in a secular state.
Whether or not there is full separation of the state and church is a very different debate.

To bring this back to the topic, the significance of being a secular state is that it is not the state who discriminate against any denomination; however the law does facilitate all denominational schools to discriminate against schoolchildren of other denominations/beliefs in certain circumstances.

causal

Talliesin

causal wrote:

Perhaps, but that's not what we were discussing.

Eh, CJhaughey was saying that we don't live in a secular state, and then you came in with stuff about how the state claims to be secular. I think it's you that is talking at cross-purposes, not CJhaughey.

causal

Talliesin wrote:

Eh, CJhaughey was saying that we don't live in a secular state, and then you came in with stuff about how the state claims to be secular. I think it's you that is talking at cross-purposes, not CJhaughey.

With respect, I don't think so.
Slightly less briefly, the dialogue was like this:
CJ said: "we live in a non-secular state"
I said: "Actually, we live in a secular state"
CJ said: "I would beg to differ , this link explains it a little better."
I said: "That link reinforces the fact we're a secular state,"
***and next comes the change in direction***
CJ said: "I still do not accept the separation of church and state has happened fully."
I said: "Perhaps, but that's not what we were discussing."

Quite simply we wern't discussing whether or not there was a full separation between church and state; maybe there is, or maybe there isn't.

imho CJhaughey provided no evidence to support his statement that we are a non-secular state;
otoh, I did provide evidence to support my statement that we are a secular state.

Even according to the link CJhaughey provided on the secular state

A secular state is a state with no state religion and in which the state is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices.

And then we check the meaning of state religion

A state religion (also called an established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. The term state church is most closely associated with Christianity, although it is sometimes used in the context of other faiths as well. Closely related to state churches are what sociologists call ecclesiae, though the two are slightly different.

That simply isn't the case in this state, ergo we're secular.

Now if people want to claim that officially we're secular but unofficially we're non-secular - well then that's a different debate too.

causal

Khannie

The catholic church was given special privileges in the original constitution. This was removed in the 70's, at least in the written constitution . The full text is available here for anyone who wants it.

One thing that points to non-secularism in practice (IMO) is the angelus. At 6pm every day, the catholic church gets one minute of prime time advertising from the state broadcaster, paid for by all those with TV Licences. No other religions are given any such privileges.

Khannie

RainyDay wrote:

Come back to me when you have your own kids and you're faced with compromising your children's education to accomodate state-sponsored religious discrimination.

HAHAHA. Brilliant. Best post I've read all day.

rsynnott

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

Well I personally think, parents have an obligation to instill some element of faith/spirtuality/religion in their children.

Yes, you can say, leave it to themselves and let them find their own path. But do you expect your children to be religionless until their mid/late teens?

What's the problem raising your children Christian, there is no obligation on them really, they can always turn away from it if it's not for them. The same would apply for most other religions.

I felt some obligation to pretend to believe in this "God" person as a young child, and even made my confirmation. Not a huge deal, but I remember feeling very unhappy about not really being able to tell my parents I didn't believe in it when I was a young kid; around 11 or 12 it was overshadowed by the much greater issue of not being able to tell them about my sexuality. As it happens, I was worrying about nothing; they're fully appraised of both facts now, and happy enough about it.

If I ever reproduce (HIGHLY unlikely, and prob'ly just as well), I'd try to bring my children up with an idea of ethics unpolluted with religion; if they wanted to believe in a god or gods, that'd be their own afair, but I certainly wouldn't push either that or my own rabid atheism on them.

As to the schools, I definitely feel that we should be moving towards a more modern, secular system, particularly with the current heavy immigration of people with non-Catholic backgrounds.

ArthurDent

rsynnott wrote:

As to the schools, I definitely feel that we should be moving towards a more modern, secular system, particularly with the current heavy immigration of people with non-Catholic backgrounds.

and here is the nub of the problem, the vast majority of primary schools (denominational, that is) are built on church lands, all be it with mainly your and my taxes and do you think that the denominations are going to hand over those schools without significant payment? We got ourselves into the current situation because in the 19th and early 20th century the main source of free education was the denominations and our governments (and people) were happy to accept this. IMO it will be next to impossible (even if the political will was there - remember Minister Woods, former Minister for Education, deal with the church authorities over liabilities in abuse cases) to get schools handed over to the Dept of Education - no-oe is going to give away their patronage rights easily.

rsynnott

We should have gone the same way as the French...