[freedominacup]

Originally Posted by marienbad

Try changing any significant policy or being openly gay or in one case recently going out with a married man and you will soon the reds as you called them coming out from under the bed.

Where is this happening? The cohort of parents esp in primary school is under 40 better educated than any group in this country's history more liberal in general than ever before and your contention is that teachers personal lives are a problem. There are procedures for changing policies within a school. The fact that you think something is "a plan" doesn't automatically mean it'll sail through.

[angelfalling]

"its simply that it state funded institutions for educating children shouldnt be peddling myth and superstition as fact."

Honestly, this is all that needs to be said about religion in the classroom. Any other argument is part of the hold that Catholicism as tradition as opposed to actual lifestyle and the "sure its always been and never did me any harm" (even though it likely did) mentality. It's needless. The sad thing is that most of the parents sending their kids to Catholic school without complaint kind of want their kids to have religious education but know they wouldn't go out of their way to give it to them otherwise, most likely because they themselves don't go to mass.

[vamos!]

Not particularly religious but don't see the harm in children attending a Catholic school if it is closer and more convenient than an ET. I also think Catholic children should go to an ET if it is the local school. Children need to learn about all different religions. If they are not from a practicing family can they not take the moral aspect of the 'stories'? Eg being kind, sharing, thankful etc. I have never heard of a primary school telling pupils that they will go to hell if they don't believe. Take what is offered in your child's area and focus on supporting the aspects of their education which are important to them. Help with reading, writing and the likes and don't worry too much about a few stories, if that is what you take the bible to mean.

[angelfalling]

vamos, if you have read the thread, you can see that many of us do not appreciate any one religion being taught with the same veracity as maths and science.

And to be quite honest, I don't find the moralities of the bible particularly promising. There is plenty of great literature they can delve into in English if they want stories about morality. I don't need my kids thinking they are "fallen" before they ever try.

[7upfree]

Originally Posted by marienbad

well all I can say is - it is a poor education if this is your idea of history

Phew. And there was me thinking you knew what you were talking about. Head, sand, etc.

[vamos!]

Originally Posted by angelfalling

vamos, if you have read the thread, you can see that many of us do not appreciate any one religion being taught with the same veracity as maths and science.

And to be quite honest, I don't find the moralities of the bible particularly promising. There is plenty of great literature they can delve into in English if they want stories about morality. I don't need my kids thinking they are "fallen" before they ever try.

In the same way that I want my children to learn a number of foreign languages while they are still young. I could choose to send them to the French school in Dublin if I choose to pay and travel. Or I could insist that the entire primary education system is based around my wishes...

[username123]

Originally Posted by vamos!

In the same way that I want my children to learn a number of foreign languages while they are still young. I could choose to send them to the French school in Dublin if I choose to pay and travel. Or I could insist that the entire primary education system is based around my wishes...

How is this a relevant point to the discussion? French is not myth and superstition. Would you send your child to a state funded school that taught Creationism as fact? Or Scientology? The point is that religion has no place in a state funded institution. This does not prevent parents from giving religious instruction to children. They can do so outside of school hours.

And I agree that children need to learn about all different religions, but that is not the same thing as religious indoctrination in one specific religion that is presented as fact. I mean, I dont understand where the gap in understanding is here, can people really be obtuse enough not to see the difference between learning about the existance of a number of different religions and religious instruction in one religion?

[marienbad]

Originally Posted by 7upfree

Phew. And there was me thinking you knew what you were talking about. Head, sand, etc.

Have you forgotten about the time when catholics were forbidden to go to Trinity and in the rare exceptions permission was required from Archbishop McQuade himself ?

It is not that education was denied to us by the British it is that a catholic education was denied to us.

You really should read up on it- a fascinating story- Newman/The Catholic University/Rice etc .

Much more nuanced that your black and white victim version.

[RustyNut]

Hi OP, looks like you stirred up a right hornets nest.

To start with I don't live in Waterford so can't comment on the individual school in question but have a daughter who just finished 6th class in an ET school in Dublin.

Our local primary school is an all girls school that is run by an order of nuns. The first reason we chose not to send her there was the girls only thing, we don't live in a single sex world so we don't think a single sex education was best for our daughter.

The second was the religious issue, as atheists my partner and I wanted a rounded religious education for her rather than an indoctrination in to one particular religion. In her 8 years there she has visited a mosque, hindu temple, catholic and Protestant church's and a synagogue. The educate together system is not anti religion just does not focus on any individual one.

We found the relationship between teachers and students was a lot more open and easy than other schools. I'm basing this on talking to nephews, nieces and friends kids so no scientific basis for it.

The kids in our daughters class appeared to behave because they didn't want to let the teacher, who they call by there first name or their class mates down rather than the prospect of getting into trouble. That's not to say they were all little "angles" or anything.

The rest of the basic education, English,maths etc is the very same as any other school, the same curriculum, same books, same tests.

All in all our experience and our daughter's was a very positive productive one, having said that we have only anicdotal experience of other schools.

Hope this helps.

Rusty.

[7upfree]

Originally Posted by marienbad

Have you forgotten about the time when catholics were forbidden to go to Trinity and in the rare exceptions permission was required from Archbishop McQuade himself ?

It is not that education was denied to us by the British it is that a catholic education was denied to us.

You really should read up on it- a fascinating story- Newman/The Catholic University/Rice etc .

Much more nuanced that your black and white victim real life version.

FYP.

[eyescreamcone]

The faith based school system in this country is bigoted and discriminatory.
- Teachers (employees) can be discrimated against because of their beliefs or sexual orientation.
This is the only workplace that allows such archaic laws.
This is not a good example to show children.
If you support a faith based school you automatically support this discrimination!!!

The fact that this system is funded by the tax payers is a joke.
And when the religious cry "we're tax payers too", do they want this discriminatory system to be introduced into EVERY workplace.

That would be mad, Ted


If in 2012 we just arrived on the island of Ireland and had to set up a school system, would we come up with the present system??
I think not.

If all schools were closed in the morning and all children had to be home schooled, how many parents would ensure that their children received the full amount of religious "instruction" as well as the 3Rs.
They don't even bring them to a religious service once a week.

Parents who insist on religious "education" for their children, but do not practice the religion themselves, or believe in the majority of its tenets, are just hypocrites.

As for those unbelievers who baptise their children in the hope of getting into a school... these people are just sheep!!!

[Dan133269]

Originally Posted by freedominacup

You're the one making the case that it happens. I can't prove a negative. The 2 links your provided are useless one or two relevant and useful links would help your case. Political party leaders not answering a question in one and the other some sort of random link to what looks like minutes from the Dail from Dec'09.

Of course, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Those links highlight acceptance of the fact that denomination primary schools often demand to see a baptismal cert before they will enroll a child in the school. There is no official report (court judgment, government report, etc) on this so all we have to go on is what is reported and documented in other areas, such as political debates and anecdotal evidence (lots of it, including 1 person in this thread) in the public domain.

I never said that schools were turning away non-Catholics, I said it was likely to happen. The reason I say this is because schools are often demanding to see a baptismal cert. Do you dispute this? If not, why else would a school demand to see a baptismal cert confirming that the child's religion (which is of course forced upon them with the child having no choice or even awareness in the matter) is the same as the school's religion, knowing that they have a legal right to refuse that child admission to the school if they are of a different religion, as per section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000?

[Dan133269]

I think we can do with a little bit of light relief on this thread.
I just came across this on broadsheet.ie
http://gavinbeattie.bigcartel.com/pr...ised-art-print

[freedominacup]

Originally Posted by Dan133269

Of course, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Those links highlight acceptance of the fact that denomination primary schools often demand to see a baptismal cert before they will enroll a child in the school. There is no official report (court judgment, government report, etc) on this so all we have to go on is what is reported and documented in other areas, such as political debates and anecdotal evidence (lots of it, including 1 person in this thread) in the public domain.

I never said that schools were turning away non-Catholics, I said it was likely to happen. The reason I say this is because schools are often demanding to see a baptismal cert. Do you dispute this? If not, why else would a school demand to see a baptismal cert confirming that the child's religion (which is of course forced upon them with the child having no choice or even awareness in the matter) is the same as the school's religion, knowing that they have a legal right to refuse that child admission to the school if they are of a different religion, as per section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000?

The links highlght F all. There is no official report as you say and anecdotes aren't a solid basis for any action never mind changing a law.

If I was on a school board of management or a trustee I'd hate to be relying on that section to cover me in not accepting a four year olds admission to my school. The burden of proof is on the school to show

"that the refusal" (of a four year olds admission) "is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,".

Section 7(3)(c) would not be helpinhg me sleep soundly at night. But I will admit that it is a disgrace that such a section exists. Section 7(3) has little to recommend it.

[Dan133269]

Originally Posted by freedominacup

The links highlght F all. There is no official report as you say and anecdotes aren't a solid basis for any action never mind changing a law.

If I was on a school board of management or a trustee I'd hate to be relying on that section to cover me in not accepting a four year olds admission to my school. The burden of proof is on the school to show

"that the refusal" (of a four year olds admission) "is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,".

Section 7(3)(c) would not be helpinhg me sleep soundly at night. But I will admit that it is a disgrace that such a section exists. Section 7(3) has little to recommend it.

Your wilful ignorance is astounding. It’s been highlighted by literally thousands of parents (including 1 on this thread) that they have needed to provide baptismal certs to the school. It’s been discussed in numerous public debates on religion in schools (some of which I posted links to – I can’t find the FrontLine episode where it was discussed). Yet, you’re simply saying all this anecdotal evidence is nonsense and you don’t believe those parents? You want an official report which doesn’t exist before you will consider whether what they are saying is the truth or not? You are purposefully burying your head in the sand.

I never said the law needs to be changed based on necessity for baptismal certs by denominational schools. What I do feel is that it is the Equal Status Act as I’ve pointed out which allowed them to act like this, and this discriminatory legislation is basis enough for changing the law, imo.

Just out of curiousity, since you demand an official report before you accept anything, did you think that the catholic church didn’t have a policy of covering up sex abuse and protecting paedophile priests, until the publication of the Murphy, Ryan and similar reports?