Fall of the Catholic Church

There's no contradiction. I'm not judging individuals. Please name any individual that I've judged?

You don't seem to reticent about holding back on judging me, interestingly enough, while you lecture me on not judging people.

There’s no hiding behind anything, it’s right there - parents are not forced to enrol their children in schools which are in violation of their conscience and lawful preference. This notion that they have no choice but to enrol their children in schools which are in violation of their conscience and lawful preference is just not true.

You vastly underestimate how far parents will go for their own children if you think they’re enrolling their children in schools which are in violation of their conscience because they have no choice but to do so.

Depending upon how strongly they feel about these things, there are parents who will choose other alternatives in the education of their own children. It’s for this reason that there are parents who continue to lobby Government to provide for education suitable for their children’s needs and are prepared to make whatever sacrifices are necessary in order to do so -

https://www.thejournal.ie/milne-family-special-needs-schools-autism-5767662-May2022/?amp=1

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/parents-of-autistic-twins-thrilled-school-places-are-finally-secured-1.4884096

But why should someone who attends such a school and does not wish to have religious education dictate that they should be accomodated? The parents moaning and whinging about not wanting religious education should take their darlings to schools where no such classes take place.

It's like the steak lover wanting a rib-eye in a vegan restaurant, and whinges about their rights not being respected.

You gave examples of the individuals you judge yourself?

I'm judging the stereotypical a-la-carte catholic, not getting out of bed on Sunday mornings, having a big day out for the communion, practicing contraception, voting for equal marriage and abortion, and STILL ticking the catholic box on the Census, and happy to impose their religious beliefs traditions on others in schools - plain simple hypocrisy.

As for me judging you personally, there’s nothing wrong with judging other people, it’s why I differentiated between judgement, and rash judgement, and asked whether you had examined yourself first before passing judgement upon other people. That you’re atheist doesn’t excuse you from the obligation which isn’t just a religious concept.

If 94% of restaurants were vegan, you might have a point.

Ah, right, so it's OK for you to judge people but not for anyone else? Great input into a discussion about hypocrisy there.

I didn't judge any individuals. I judged types of individuals. If you believe I judged individuals, please name them.

Andrew you can keep up the pretence that people don’t have any choice for as long as you need to, it’s of no consequence to me. In reality, until such a time as parents choose not to enrol their children in religious ethos schools and instead lobby Government to provide for education in accordance with their children’s needs, then the current situation will remain unchanged.

I know a number of parents who have made the choice to avail of alternatives for their own children’s education while at the same time lobbying Government to provide for education in accordance with their children’s needs, so there is no basis whatsoever upon which you can claim that parents have no choice but to enrol their children in religious ethos schools.

In order for Article 42 to be relevant, it has to contradict the claim that parents have no choice but to enrol their children in religious ethos schools. There are viable alternatives, it’s just that parents reject them in favour of their own preferences for the education of their own children. It’s why surveys of parents find that they support alternatives in education, while at the same time they don’t express any willingness to avail of those alternatives for their own children, and in some cases actively resist any attempt for those alternatives to be imposed upon their own children -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/many-parents-reluctant-to-change-patronage-of-school-survey-finds-1.4784523

These are largely the same parents btw who Andrew observes engage in this sort of thing -

the stereotypical a-la-carte catholic, not getting out of bed on Sunday mornings, having a big day out for the communion, practicing contraception, voting for equal marriage and abortion, and STILL ticking the catholic box on the Census, and happy to impose their religious beliefs traditions on others in schools - plain simple hypocrisy.

I can understand why parents are unwilling to make the choices for their own children that you are claiming they can’t make, and it’s a fairly obvious point - they don’t want to, and they don’t care for other peoples judgement.

That's down to a shortage of schools then, which is a government issue.

Last time there was a discussion on this the person complaining lived in Dublin and wouldn't go anywhere other than the nearest school.

Emphasis can be on the word viable all it likes, it still doesn’t change the meaning intended by the provision in Article 42, which, if you insist on claiming it’s irrelevant, is written in the context of Article 42 as a whole -

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.

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.

You appear to be under the impression that your conditions of viability should carry any weight where it’s quite clear that the Department of Education has other ideas. That’s reality. That’s not hiding behind anything. The reason the legislation still exists in the form that it does, is because there isn’t sufficient demand to change it.

Do I really need to list all the changes in legislation and Constitutional amendments which have been made in the last 50 years since the establishment of the Dalkey Project as an alternative to Catholic Education? I don’t think I do, I’m conscious of the fact that you keep reminding me of how your time is so valuable as if you have no choice in how you choose to respond, or not.

Yes if they thought it was that important to get their claws into the under 10's they would soon find the money 🤣

Thats your area - what about areas where there is a choice?

Nonsense. There are choices. it may take a little extra effort to get it sorted, but you just want the easy way out. If you as a parent do not have a desire to educate your child in religion nor have them partake in religious activities, find a school that will support your needs.

If there are enough parents with the same desire within your local area, why don't you start a school for your needs? It's been done before!

.... or have schools that cater for everyone? It's really not that difficult.

Is there actually a deal breaker in there for you? And if so, what?

Imagine if by law 94% of restaurants were vegan?