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
School patronage
Options
Comments
-
how does one "maintain the ethos of the school"?Just had a read of the draft bill. It says in in subsection (ii);Which would all be very laudable, if it wasn't "subject to subsection iii" which contains the same old nonsensical loopholes...
My reading of it is that a faith school will still have the same loopholes in the equality legislation available to it as before. They will still be able to give priority admission to active parishioners and those with baptismal certs, even where that is not "essential to maintain the ethos of the school". So this makes a nonsense of everything listed in subsection (ii).
And if they really don't like the cut of someone, they can refuse admission totally or ask them to leave, even when the school has vacant spaces. If it affects their ethos. This has happened in the past when a secondary schoolgirl got pregnant. Or it could happen, theoretically, if someone was an "outspoken" atheist or member of the wrong religion and deemed to be a bad influence.
Its bull$hit. Whats the point of bringing in another law to say schools cannot discriminate, except when they are discriminating?
By putting in the phrase "does not discriminate where".... followed by the usual discriminatory practices, they are just giving us more of the same old bull$hit that we already have.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »I told him he was delusional, he blocked me, not for that, but for not having a photograph of myself as my twitter avatar, which is apparently a requirement for debate online, that nobody told me about.
It seems to be quite the "trending" thing on twitter in particular, and on social media in general. Often on a "pros vs amateurs" basis -- the pros want to use the platform to big up their work-related stuff, and don't want to be dealing with "anonymous trolls", the amateurs might have, well, real lives to be worrying about, and might accordingly not want to be broadcasting their real names, pictures, etc. How very "precious" of them -- as one Dara O'Briain said, during one such. A rampaging mob of SF writers not wanting to be called about their nonsense on race pulled much the same thing in a fairly notorious incident. But I digress.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »how does one "maintain the ethos of the school"?
Presumably if "[X] denominational ethos" is essentially defined as "a school full of children of denomination [X] doing lots of [X]-denominational things", it's not hard to argue an admission policy has to discriminate to "maintain" that. The art of it is being a tad subtler than that, while achieving essentially the same result.0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »Presumably if "[X] denominational ethos" is essentially defined as "a school full of children of denomination [X] doing lots of [X]-denominational things", it's not hard to argue an admission policy has to discriminate to "maintain" that. The art of it is being a tad subtler than that, while achieving essentially the same result.
"a school full of children" how full?0 -
expectationlost wrote: »"a school full of children" how full?
Hey, don't be asking me, now! Until the "ethos" mystically loses its... ethosness . There's a fancy name for that there paradox-of-gradualism, but can't recall it offhand.0 -
Advertisement
-
expectationlost wrote: »"a school full of children" how full?
Or how empty for the pessimists out there.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »how does one "maintain the ethos of the school"?
If (for instance) a part of the school ethos is to nurture faith, Christian spirituality and Gospel-based values, one might maintain the ethos by only enrolling pupils who profess faith, have Christian spirituality, and espouse Gospel-based values. Or, I suppose, whose parents do so on their behalf, and would like to see some of it knocked into them, so to speak. One might also maintain that ethos by proselytising to pupils who don't share the ethos, but that seems to be frowned on, probably because it infringes on pupils rights not to engage in unwanted religious instruction.alaimacerc wrote: »Presumably if "[X] denominational ethos" is essentially defined as "a school full of children of denomination [X] doing lots of [X]-denominational things", it's not hard to argue an admission policy has to discriminate to "maintain" that. The art of it is being a tad subtler than that, while achieving essentially the same result.0 -
Another way would be to interview prospective parents and teachers. Try to ascertain their attitudes to gay rights, religion in education, their background, their marital status etc.. Sort out the wheat from the chaff before they get into the school at all.
Pregnancies are never appropriate in school pupils, but most schools would not expel a pregnant girl just to protect their ethos image. Some would.0 -
if you've been reading the IT letters where 1 or 2 school principals or parents have written in saying oh I let them in, oh I wasn't asked for baptism certificate
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/state-schools-and-religion-1.2084341Sir, – I think that many of the contributors to this page on the issue of school patronage are missing the point.
The fact that some church-run schools welcome children of all faiths and none is irrelevant – the important point is that they are under no obligation to do so.
Section 7 of the Equal Status Act 2000 allows schools to discriminate in their enrollment policies against children who have not been baptised or are of a different religion. An oversubscribed church-run school can use religion as the first criterion to shorten an application list – and it is obvious that this is common practice, otherwise why have the discriminatory law at all?
Given that almost the entire Irish national school system is church-run, the difficulties facing non-religious parents are clear.
It is understandable that those unaffected by this do not realise that the mere existence of the discriminatory statutory provision introduces deeply unsettling uncertainty into the lives of many non-religious parents who have funded schools through their taxes just like their religious counterparts.
Parents should not have to rely on the goodwill of a benevolent principal or patron. All children should be guaranteed equal access to education regardless of the decisions their parents make regarding religion, but this is simply not the case in Ireland today. – Yours, etc,
PADDY MONAHAN,
Raheny, Dublin 5.
clap clap0 -
The point rests on this notion though;expectationlost wrote: »if you've been reading the IT letters where 1 or 2 school principals or parents have written in saying oh I let them in, oh I wasn't asked for baptism certificate clap clap
. It's rather dodging the fact that most schools run by religious orders are on land owned by religious orders, and are built and (to at least some degree) maintained by those religious orders. The money for that didn't come from the Vaticans coffers, nor did it come from taxes paid by religious and non religious alike; it came from parishioners. The religious have a greater stake in those schools than the non religious.Letter wrote:many non-religious parents who have funded schools through their taxes just like their religious counterparts.
Not denying that the State pays most of their running costs and all of the teachers salaries etc, but to put secular schools on an equal footing means that those who want secular educational institutions should be bringing the same thing to the table as those who want(ed) religious educational institutions. Who is putting their money where their mouth is?0 -
Advertisement
-
The point rests on this notion though; . It's rather dodging the fact that most schools run by religious orders are on land owned by religious orders, and are built and (to at least some degree) maintained by those religious orders. The money for that didn't come from the Vaticans coffers, nor did it come from taxes paid by religious and non religious alike; it came from parishioners. The religious have a greater stake in those schools than the non religious.
I don't think you can actually make distinction between parishioners and everyone else in Ireland. your local school was your local school, if an area needed a school and needed money from the locals, non-religious would have contributed too wouldn't they, if they needed a school.Not denying that the State pays most of their running costs and all of the teachers salaries etc, but to put secular schools on an equal footing means that those who want secular educational institutions should be bringing the same thing to the table as those who want(ed) religious educational institutions. Who is putting their money where their mouth is?0 -
Religious orders many of whom owe very large sums of money for redress for child abuse, and who have refused to pay it. It should be easy to do a deal with them on this basis.The point rests on this notion though; . It's rather dodging the fact that most schools run by religious orders are on land owned by religious orders, and are built and (to at least some degree) maintained by those religious orders. ?0 -
Religious orders many of whom owe very large sums of money for redress for child abuse, and who have refused to pay it. It should be easy to do a deal with them on this basis.
i was talking more about the past then the present but Shortfall of funds relating to Catholic Church redress scheme will also be examined by PAC
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pac-to-investigate-how-more-than-9m-spent-on-unused-airstrips-1.2084767#.VMviVNl7dFA.twitter
making these deals during the boom hasn't helped0 -
Why not? I don't think many non parishioners were putting money in the collection plates of their local catholic parish church, and not many non-protestant locals were attending too many fetes in the rectory garden. I doubt many Christian locals in Rathgar contributed to the founding of the Stratford schools. Anyone not part of those congregations was only going to be contributing if their children were already in the school and being asked for contributions, were they not? These days I think (except in the case of less urban CoI schools) most of the fundraising happens in the schools rather than the parishes, but the focus was certainly the church in the heyday of religious education.expectationlost wrote: »I don't think you can actually make distinction between parishioners and everyone else in Ireland. your local school was your local school, if an area needed a school and needed money from the locals, non-religious would have contributed too wouldn't they, if they needed a school.
I doubt it; they don't seem very inclined to pay at the moment, and I don't see many TDs showing an appetite for seizing their assets, do you?Religious orders many of whom owe very large sums of money for redress for child abuse, and who have refused to pay it. It should be easy to do a deal with them on this basis.
Maybe we will see a Minister prepared to bankrupt the religious orders in order to recover what's owed (and personally I hope we do), but that certainly doesn't mean that those who want secular education institutions will have contributed as much as those who want(ed) religious education institutions, only that they (may) benefit from the misconduct of the religious orders.0 -
i think they were, my father is not religious, he brought us to church, got us to pennies in the basket and he would put in larger amounts for the special collections only my mother and 1 sister still goes ETA and he was on the PTA way back whenWhy not? I don't think many non parishioners were putting money in the collection plates of their local catholic parish church0 -
expectationlost wrote: »i think they were, my father is not religious, he brought us to church, got us to pennies in the basket and he woudl put in larger amounts for the special collections only my mother and 1 sister still goes
In fairness, if he was going to church and making contributions, it would be hard not to call him a parishioner, regardless of the strength of his faith :-)0 -
In fairness, if he was going to church and making contributions, it would be hard not to call him a parishioner, regardless of the strength of his faith :-)
lots of people going through the motions that's who is funding schools
my sister just got her kid baptised over the xmas holidays, not because she been to church in years but because she in England and needs to ensure she'll get a place in school, (or Ireland if she comes back, which might do in a few years) these are the people occupying and funding catholic schools.0 -
Maybe, maybe not; there's no statistical evidence that the majority of people who attend churches and contribute money to them are simply 'going through the motions'. And maybe they were only going through the motions 80 years ago, but there's no actual evidence for that either is there? The only evidence is that they were attending their various churches and contributing money to them. On balance, I'd suggest that level of engagement means they were more invested than not.expectationlost wrote: »lots of people going through the motions that's who is funding schools
There's an interesting thing; so you're saying that the facility to prefer pupils based on religion is not exclusively a feature of the Irish education system. Hmm.expectationlost wrote: »my sister just got her kid baptised over the xmas holidays, not because she been to church in years but because she in England and needs to ensure she'll get a place in school, these are the people occupying and funding catholic schools.0 -
Maybe, maybe not; there's no statistical evidence that the majority of people who attend churches and contribute money to them are simply 'going through the motions'. And maybe they were only going through the motions 80 years ago, but there's no actual evidence for that either is there? The only evidence is that they were attending their various churches and contributing money to them. On balance, I'd suggest that level of engagement means they were more invested than not.
.
Well, what strikes me is the reluctance of these people to involve themselves in their children's religious and spiritual education, and the reluctance on the part of the RC clergy. It doesn't strike me as very committed if you abandon your child's religious education to a stranger whose own religious commitment you know very little about. It's easy to supply money for other people to do what you should be doing yourself...0 -
Churches unite at St Patrick’s teacher training college in Drumcomdra http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/churches-unite-at-st-patrick-s-teacher-training-college-in-drumcomdra-1.2087445Keogh says the college will “cater for Catholic, Protestant or dissenter”, noting its strong links with multi-denominational patron Educate Together. However, like other State-funded teacher training colleges, it continues to recommend students take the Certificate in Religious Studies (CRS) to aid their employment prospects.
“Different patrons have obviously different requirements and that’s their prerogative,” explains Keogh. The CRS is required for those who wish to teach in religious-run schools.
He acknowledges that some change is necessary in school patronage to “get a better integrity within the system” but says it’s beyond the college’s control. Were patronage to become more diverse then schools could have a “clear ethos” allowing parents and teachers to choose where to go in accordance with their genuine beliefs1, Keogh adds.
“I don’t think the current system, one size fits all2, is suitable. But that’s a political issue and one for the patrons.”
lets do the segregation dance
sorry what now?0 -
Advertisement
-
Just because children receive religious formation in schools, it doesn't follow that parents are not "involved in their children's religious and spiritual formation", or that parents have "abandoned [their] child's religious education to a stranger". This makes about as much sense as assuming that, that where children learn to read at school, it must follow that their parents never read to or with them, and their homes are book-free zones.Well, what strikes me is the reluctance of these people to involve themselves in their children's religious and spiritual education, and the reluctance on the part of the RC clergy. It doesn't strike me as very committed if you abandon your child's religious education to a stranger whose own religious commitment you know very little about. It's easy to supply money for other people to do what you should be doing yourself...0 -
Why do you think 'these people' aren't involving themselves in their childrens religious and spiritual education? I suspect that those who attend their church and give money to it are sufficiently invested to take part in educating their children about what they're doing as well. Is there any substantial (ie non apocryphal) evidence to the contrary?Well, what strikes me is the reluctance of these people to involve themselves in their children's religious and spiritual education, and the reluctance on the part of the RC clergy.
Well, people currently abandon their children's secular education to strangers whose commitment to secular education they know equally little about. Under the Constitution parents clearly have the right (and more particularly, duty) to be the primary and natural provider of the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children, whereas the State is only obliged to provide for their (primary) education. Yet very few parents provide that education; they supply money so the State (other people) can do what they should be doing themselves. Why would you hold parents to a different standard for religious education than we do for secular education?It doesn't strike me as very committed if you abandon your child's religious education to a stranger whose own religious commitment you know very little about. It's easy to supply money for other people to do what you should be doing yourself...0 -
Why do you think 'these people' aren't involving themselves in their childrens religious and spiritual education? I suspect that those who attend their church and give money to it are sufficiently invested to take part in educating their children about what they're doing as well. Is there any substantial (ie non apocryphal) evidence to the contrary?
Well, people currently abandon their children's secular education to strangers whose commitment to secular education they know equally little about. Under the Constitution parents clearly have the right (and more particularly, duty) to be the primary and natural provider of the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children, whereas the State is only obliged to provide for their (primary) education. Yet very few parents provide that education; they supply money so the State (other people) can do what they should be doing themselves. Why would you hold parents to a different standard for religious education than we do for secular education?
The church doesn't organise religious education and the parents hand the religious education over to total strangers whose faith they have no idea about. It sounds to me like a lack of commitment to the religious education of their children.
Secular subjects are fact bases, and parents know that the teachers educating their children in non-religious subjects are trained in those subjects and qualified to impart the knowledge. Religious education is a totally different matter; it presupposes - or should presuppose - a belief in the matters being conveyed to the learner and a commitment to the particular religious denomination the teacher is teaching about. For a parent to allow their child to be prepared for the sacrament of the Eucharist by someone who could be an atheist surely begs a question of commitment on the part of the parents. If parents don't feel competent in passing on certain elements of religious education themselves, the next port of call should be their church or mosque or synagogue or temple, where qualified and committed people are available.
And let's not forget the role of the church here; it's almost worse that the church abdicates its responsibility in this regard. A priest showing his face now and then in the classroom is not taking responsibility for the religious education of his flock.
In a country where RC schools were an option rather than the norm, it might make some kind of sense, because the likelihood would be that teachers who had a specific interest in Roman Catholicism would apply for jobs there. But in this country, where almost all primary schools are Roman Catholic, teachers who have no particular interest have to lie in order to get a job. It is unfair on them and on the children to expect them to pass on religious education.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Just because children receive religious formation in schools, it doesn't follow that parents are not "involved in their children's religious and spiritual formation", or that parents have "abandoned [their] child's religious education to a stranger". This makes about as much sense as assuming that, that where children learn to read at school, it must follow that their parents never read to or with them, and their homes are book-free zones.
Their parents or their church don't prepare them for the sacraments. Strangers, who could be atheists, do. Of course many parents give them moral guidance and, hopefully, show them by example their commitment to their religion, but let's face it, the country is also full of parents who never darken the door of a church, but are quite happy for their child's teacher to give up their evenings and weekends to spend time preparing their child for the sacraments and who will turn up in the glad rags on the mornign of the big day.
And the church itself plays little or no part in religious education or sacramental preparation other than a priest visiting the school occasionally. The day to day preparation and education they leave to others, although it is their pastoral duty.0 -
Their parents or their church don't prepare them for the sacraments. Strangers, who could be atheists, do. Of course many parents give them moral guidance and, hopefully, show them by example their commitment to their religion, but let's face it, the country is also full of parents who never darken the door of a church, but are quite happy for their child's teacher to give up their evenings and weekends to spend time preparing their child for the sacraments and who will turn up in the glad rags on the mornign of the big day.
And the church itself plays little or no part in religious education or sacramental preparation other than a priest visiting the school occasionally. The day to day preparation and education they leave to others, although it is their pastoral duty.
You could argue that most Irish "catholics" are actually just participating in a social convention rather than being seriously devout. Even in my grandfather's time it was considered a bit odd to be too religious, I have a great-grandfather who was known in his community as "Holy Joe", and that wasn't a mark of respect either.
People like traditional ceremonies for births deaths and marriages, and they don't mind other odd occasions like midnight mass at Christmas, but I think that's really quite it for a lot of them.
So I'm not at all surprised that many are happy with the status quo: it's what they experienced themselves as kids, so there is the continuity of tradition, it provides for the rituals of major life events, and they don't have to lift a finger most of the time to make it happen.0 -
Which church doesn't organise religious education? Some churches (like the Roman Catholic Church) have entire bodies dedicated entirely to education. If you're going to give someone a religious education, it seems to me the very essence of commitment would be to put it in the hands of a professional body whose very purpose is to impart it. After all, it's what we do with secular education.The church doesn't organise religious education and the parents hand the religious education over to total strangers whose faith they have no idea about. It sounds to me like a lack of commitment to the religious education of their children.
And the teachers educating them in religious subjects aren't trained in them and qualified to impart the knowledge? Would it be fair to say you haven't been following the discussions about religious education modules being offered in teacher training colleges? It seems very difficult nowadays to become a teacher without taking the optional religious education modules...Secular subjects are fact bases, and parents know that the teachers educating their children in non-religious subjects are trained in those subjects and qualified to impart the knowledge.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there; religious education requires only a thorough knowledge of the subject and the ability to impart it. Proselytisation might demand some belief and commitment to the religion to be effective, but education certainly doesn't.Religious education is a totally different matter; it presupposes - or should presuppose - a belief in the matters being conveyed to the learner and a commitment to the particular religious denomination the teacher is teaching about.
As above; real commitment would be getting a professional to do the job, just like with secular education. Certainly better than having someone who thinks they know about the sacraments but actually doesn't, preparing their children, wouldn't you say?For a parent to allow their child to be prepared for the sacrament of the Eucharist by someone who could be an atheist surely begs a question of commitment on the part of the parents.
I'm not sure which parents you think don't feel competent in passing on certain elements of religious education themselves? But I suspect schools run by religious orders dedicated to teaching are likely to have the odd qualified and committed person floating about...If parents don't feel competent in passing on certain elements of religious education themselves, the next port of call should be their church or mosque or synagogue or temple, where qualified and committed people are available.
Well, let's not forget it's not the churches role at all; according to the Constitution it is the duty and responsibility of parents, not churches, to provide religious education for their children. But if the churches wanted to get in on the deal, what better way to do so than training a world spanning cadre of educators? Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Society of the Sacred Heart.... the RCC seems to be fairly hot on the idea to be fair.And let's not forget the role of the church here; it's almost worse that the church abdicates its responsibility in this regard. A priest showing his face now and then in the classroom is not taking responsibility for the religious education of his flock.
Well, I don't think anyone is condoning lying, probably not least religious educators. But personally I can't see why an atheist can't teach a roman catholic about religion? And if parents don't like how the teachers do it... well it is the parents responsibility after all.In a country where RC schools were an option rather than the norm, it might make some kind of sense, because the likelihood would be that teachers who had a specific interest in Roman Catholicism would apply for jobs there. But in this country, where almost all primary schools are Roman Catholic, teachers who have no particular interest have to lie in order to get a job. It is unfair on them and on the children to expect them to pass on religious education.
I think you've got a bit too much tar on that brush to be honest.. Some parents and some churches prepare children for sacraments. And to be honest, it's only a parents business whether they do or don't.Their parents or their church don't prepare them for the sacraments. Strangers, who could be atheists, do..
And that's a choice they're entitled to make; if that's the kind of religion they want, it's up to them.Of course many parents give them moral guidance and, hopefully, show them by example their commitment to their religion, but let's face it, the country is also full of parents who never darken the door of a church, but are quite happy for their child's teacher to give up their evenings and weekends to spend time preparing their child for the sacraments and who will turn up in the glad rags on the mornign of the big day.
Is this perhaps a little bit of a rant about 'why I left rcc for coi'? Only I don't think many people here are greatly dismayed at the idea that the rcc isn't sufficiently invested in creating a new generation of christian soldiers....And the church itself plays little or no part in religious education or sacramental preparation other than a priest visiting the school occasionally. The day to day preparation and education they leave to others, although it is their pastoral duty.0 -
Which church doesn't organise religious education? Some churches (like the Roman Catholic Church) have entire bodies dedicated entirely to education. If you're going to give someone a religious education, it seems to me the very essence of commitment would be to put it in the hands of a professional body whose very purpose is to impart it. After all, it's what we do with secular education.
And the teachers educating them in religious subjects aren't trained in them and qualified to impart the knowledge? Would it be fair to say you haven't been following the discussions about religious education modules being offered in teacher training colleges? It seems very difficult nowadays to become a teacher without taking the optional religious education modules...
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there; religious education requires only a thorough knowledge of the subject and the ability to impart it. Proselytisation might demand some belief and commitment to the religion to be effective, but education certainly doesn't.
As above; real commitment would be getting a professional to do the job, just like with secular education. Certainly better than having someone who thinks they know about the sacraments but actually doesn't, preparing their children, wouldn't you say?
I'm not sure which parents you think don't feel competent in passing on certain elements of religious education themselves? But I suspect schools run by religious orders dedicated to teaching are likely to have the odd qualified and committed person floating about...
Well, let's not forget it's not the churches role at all; according to the Constitution it is the duty and responsibility of parents, not churches, to provide religious education for their children. But if the churches wanted to get in on the deal, what better way to do so than training a world spanning cadre of educators? Jesuits, Christian Brothers, Society of the Sacred Heart.... the RCC seems to be fairly hot on the idea to be fair.
Well, I don't think anyone is condoning lying, probably not least religious educators. But personally I can't see why an atheist can't teach a roman catholic about religion? And if parents don't like how the teachers do it... well it is the parents responsibility after all.
I think you've got a bit too much tar on that brush to be honest.. Some parents and some churches prepare children for sacraments. And to be honest, it's only a parents business whether they do or don't.
And that's a choice they're entitled to make; if that's the kind of religion they want, it's up to them.
Is this perhaps a little bit of a rant about 'why I left rcc for coi'? Only I don't think many people here are greatly dismayed at the idea that the rcc isn't sufficiently invested in creating a new generation of christian soldiers....
The Roman Catholic church doesn't organise religious education for children. Having institutions for the training of priests is all very well, but its pastoral mission should include the religious education of all, especially children. You are absolutely right that it should be in the hands of a professional body, not primary teachers who while trained in the mechanics of religious education, are not required to have any commitment to the religion or the denomination they are teaching other than an assumption at time of hiring that they fulfill certain criteria.
In the case of religious instruction, the professionals are the clergy. Lay people who are dedicated to their religion can be trained in delivering it on a voluntary basis, and would be far more effective, in the context of the connection with the church, than a busy primary teacher who may not even believe in God!
The time and the setting for religious education should be connected to the church, not the school. Protestant children of primary age go to Sunday school, where committed individuals pass on a child centred version of religious knowledge, and Protestant young people who are prepared for confirmation attend classes in their own time, on Saturdays or in the evening, and the instruction is done by the clergy or lay people chosen by them.
You're right that from a LEGAL point of view, it is the duty of the parents to provide religious and moral guidance to their children. I'm surprised that the RCC would take such a legalistic stance on it - that doesn't seem to fit in with the way Christ suggested we go out and pass on his message...
This is not a rant of any kind. I didn't leave the RCC because of its shortcomings in education; but it certainly was a factor in my disengagement from it. The religious "education" I received was mechanical, bore no trace of spirituality or promoted no understanding whatsoever of what religion was actually about. I sailed through Communion at age seven and Confirmation at age 11 without any understanding of what I was doing. I do think it is shameful that the RCC abdicated all responsibility for the religious education of its faithful (other than those who have already made an adult commitment), but it's more indicative of the laziness of Irish society, which allows this to happen.0 -
You mean aside from the religious orders dedicated to education?The Roman Catholic church doesn't organise religious education for children.
Surely it's up to the RCC to decide what it's pastoral mission should include?Having institutions for the training of priests is all very well, but its pastoral mission should include the religious education of all, especially children.
Tut tut tut! I never said it shouldn't be in the hands of primary teachers, who are of course professionals, and trained to teach religion, regardless of their interest in the subject. Just like every other subject they teach.You are absolutely right that it should be in the hands of a professional body, not primary teachers who while trained in the mechanics of religious education, are not required to have any commitment to the religion or the denomination they are teaching other than an assumption at time of hiring that they fulfill certain criteria.
Perhaps, but in the case of religious education, the professionals are educators; commonly known as teachers.In the case of religious instruction, the professionals are the clergy. Lay people who are dedicated to their religion can be trained in delivering it on a voluntary basis, and would be far more effective, in the context of the connection with the church, than a busy primary teacher who may not even believe in God!
Well, that's really up to the parents, isn't it? After all, it's their duty and responsibility.The time and the setting for religious education should be connected to the church, not the school.
Well, some Protestant children do. Depending on the wishes of their parents.Protestant children of primary age go to Sunday school, where committed individuals pass on a child centred version of religious knowledge, and Protestant young people who are prepared for confirmation attend classes in their own time, on Saturdays or in the evening, and the instruction is done by the clergy or lay people chosen by them.
Well, more from a factual point of view really. As opposed to a philosophical one.You're right that from a LEGAL point of view, it is the duty of the parents to provide religious and moral guidance to their children.
Are you? When did they take that stance?I'm surprised that the RCC would take such a legalistic stance on it - that doesn't seem to fit in with the way Christ suggested we go out and pass on his message...
That very much sounds like a rant.....This is not a rant of any kind. I didn't leave the RCC because of its shortcomings in education; but it certainly was a factor in my disengagement from it. The religious "education" I received was mechanical, bore no trace of spirituality or promoted no understanding whatsoever of what religion was actually about. I sailed through Communion at age seven and Confirmation at age 11 without any understanding of what I was doing. I do think it is shameful that the RCC abdicated all responsibility for the religious education of its faithful (other than those who have already made an adult commitment), but it's more indicative of the laziness of Irish society, which allows this to happen.0 -
The religious orders dedicated to education? You mean the handful of brothers or nuns in "religious schools" who are mostly in management. The "religious schools" where most, if not all the teaching staff are lay?You mean aside from the religious orders dedicated to education?
Surely it's up to the RCC to decide what it's pastoral mission should include?
Tut tut tut! I never said it shouldn't be in the hands of primary teachers, who are of course professionals, and trained to teach religion, regardless of their interest in the subject. Just like every other subject they teach.
Perhaps, but in the case of religious education, the professionals are educators; commonly known as teachers.
Well, that's really up to the parents, isn't it? After all, it's their duty and responsibility.
Well, some Protestant children do. Depending on the wishes of their parents.
Well, more from a factual point of view really. As opposed to a philosophical one.
Are you? When did they take that stance?
That very much sounds like a rant.....
I would have thought that the RCC, like any Christian church, would take its pastoral mission from the words of Jesus himself; ""Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature". Not "employ people whose religious beliefs you don't know to pass on religious knowledge to your children instead of doing it yourself"...
Anyone can be trained to teach religion, but religion isn't a subject like maths or geography, where you are simply passing on skills and knowledge. A person teaching religion HAS to be committed to what they are teaching, has to believe what they are saying. Otherwise it is an empty exercise.
Yes, SOME Protestant children get a religious education, others don't. That depends on the parents, and, in the case of teenagers, on the young people themselves. The point is they don't expect the schools to do it for them; their clergy and laity take on the responsibility.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well done! Yes, the very ones that organise religious education for children, like you said.The religious orders dedicated to education? You mean the handful of brothers or nuns in "religious schools" who are mostly in management. The "religious schools" where most, if not all the teaching staff are lay?
Why would you have thought that? Has the RCC said so, or are are you just looking to have a little dig about how you reckon they don't do things you think they should? Is it not up to the RCC to decide what their pastoral mission should include? After all, it is their pastoral mission, isn't it?I would have thought that the RCC, like any Christian church, would take its pastoral mission from the words of Jesus himself; ""Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature". Not "employ people whose religious beliefs you don't know to pass on religious knowledge to your children instead of doing it yourself"...
Well, yes, it is a subject like maths or geography, and any subject can be taught by any person with the skills to teach and the knowledge to be imparted.Anyone can be trained to teach religion, but religion isn't a subject like maths or geography, where you are simply passing on skills and knowledge.
That's not religious education you're talking about; it's religious instruction, or proselytisation, or indoctrination, depending on the fervour, forcefulness, and techniques employed.A person teaching religion HAS to be committed to what they are teaching, has to believe what they are saying. Otherwise it is an empty exercise.
The point is some Protestant parents do expect the schools to provide religious education for them, just as some Catholic parents expect the schools to provide religious education for them, and there are parents in both faiths who are happier to take on the task themselves. You've not presented any evidence that the CoI does a better job either of educating people in religion or of proselytising to children than any other religion does.Yes, SOME Protestant children get a religious education, others don't. That depends on the parents, and, in the case of teenagers, on the young people themselves. The point is they don't expect the schools to do it for them; their clergy and laity take on the responsibility.
Nor, in fact, have you given us any reason for why you're trying to persuade us that they do?0
Advertisement