School patronage

Peregrinus · 27-11-2015 9:24am

Shrap wrote: »

It's not pointless to frame the same question in a different way, as it shows people that they have a different response to that question when they have an emotional investment in it. By taking out the word religion, yes, you can get an answer that is unrealistic considering that most schools are religious . . .

You're missing the point. It's unrealistic because most parents are religious, at least to some extent, and many or most parents do in fact want religious involvement in their child's education. If you ask people to ignore this factor, and then say on what other factor they would choose a school, then you'll get answers that refer to academic standards, or social cachet, or quality of pastoral care, or something else. And you can get them to ignore those factors too if you frame the question, as you suggest, specifically to focus on a choice between a neighbourhood school and a more remote school. Then you can be reasonably confident of hearing that they'd prefer a neighbourhood school, thanks.

But, like I keep saying, so what? But all you're doing is identifying the answer you want and then framing a question that will elicit that answer. In the real world parents care about more than the location of the school. What you're doing is framing a question designed to exclude all the factors which might get in the way of the answer that you want to hear. This tells me a good deal about what you want, but practically nothing about what parents want. In fact, it looks like a strategy intentionally designed to obscure what parents want.

recedite · 27-11-2015 12:58pm

Absolam wrote: »

So... rather than imposing secular schools which would certainly be a less than indifferent activity in matters of religion, it should allow the diversity of denominational education?

Providing secular schools is not the same as imposing secular schools. Private denominational or other special interest schools could still co-exist with secular state-funded schools.
Secular being "indifferent" to religion in the sense of being neutral or impartial to religion, as Shrap pointed out.
The state should allow a diversity of denominational education, but should neither promote nor fund it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Our shared values, rec, include the idea that people can hold diverse interests, beliefs and values publicly as well as privately. (Please tell me I'm not wrong!)

Of course. But surely you don't expect the state to fund the diverse private interests and beliefs displayed publicly by your good self ?

Peregrinus wrote: »

.. if that is the case, there may be a need for for a greater choice of schools in her neighbourhood. But it's no argument for saying that every school in the country must be suitable for her.

How many religions are there in Ireland? How many different linguistic groups? How many different teaching philosophies, eg. steiner, montessori ?
The state cannot possibly fund one of each type in every little village or neighbourhood. Even if that was considered desirable.
Economically, more and smaller schools means less resources and less facilities per school.
Socially, it works against social cohesion and an overall sense of shared community.

RainyDay · 27-11-2015 1:25pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing the point. It's unrealistic because most parents are religious, at least to some extent, and many or

Define 'religious'?

Do you mean 'go to Mass at Xmas, Easter, weddings, funerals and baptisms', and communion/confirmation celebrations?

Absolam · 27-11-2015 1:48pm

recedite wrote: »

Providing secular schools is not the same as imposing secular schools. Private denominational or other special interest schools could still co-exist with secular state-funded schools.

Denominational and special interest schools can currently co-exist with secular schools. Removing funding from those schools and only funding secular schools would most assuredly be imposing secular schools.

recedite wrote: »

Secular being "indifferent" to religion in the sense of being neutral or impartial to religion, as Shrap pointed out.
The state should allow a diversity of denominational education, but should neither promote nor fund it.

Why? If the people of the State want State funded denominational education for their children, what mandate does the State have to refuse it?

Dan_Solo · 27-11-2015 3:17pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Define 'religious'?

Do you mean 'go to Mass at Xmas, Easter, weddings, funerals and baptisms', and communion/confirmation celebrations?

Oh I'm sure he'll opt for the "baptised so they're religious" approach. Similar to "send their kids to a religious school so they must be religious themselves".

recedite · 27-11-2015 4:04pm

Absolam wrote: »

Denominational and special interest schools can currently co-exist with secular schools. Removing funding from those schools and only funding secular schools would most assuredly be imposing secular schools.

As mentioned earlier, there are numerous special interest schools in the state, such as steiner schools or foreign language schools, which don't receive state funding. Why are religious schools so special that they must be publicly funded?
Could they not survive without state support? If religious schools are as important as you seem to think, religious parents will support the school upholding their own religion, privately.

Absolam wrote: »

Why? If the people of the State want State funded denominational education for their children, what mandate does the State have to refuse it?

Majority religions which are endowed by the state should not benefit from this state support, even if the majority seem happy with it.

Fred Swanson · 27-11-2015 4:08pm

This post has been deleted.

expectationlost · 27-11-2015 5:57pm

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure there's a few humanists and atheists hereabouts who would disagree that either topic belongs in 'religious' studies, not being religious philosophies

The judge said: "It is not of itself unlawful to permit an RS GCSE to be created which is wholly devoted to the study of religion."
But he added the February announcement had included the "assertion" the new GCSE "will fulfil the entirety of the state's [religious education] duties" and schools would interpret this to mean non-religious views need not be included in teaching. "The assertion thus represents a breach of the duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34921857

whether its compulsory in some schools...

In secondary schools, GCSEs are compulsory in the core subjects. The only requirement is that in state schools English, mathematics, science and physical education are studied during Key Stage 4 (the GCSE years of school). In England and Northern Ireland, pupils following the national curriculum (compulsory in state schools) must also study some form of information communication technology (ICT), and citizenship. In Wales, Welsh (as a first or second language) must also be studied. These subjects do not have to be taught for any examination (or even be discrete lessons), though it is normal for at least English, mathematics and science to be studied to GCSE level.

For the reasons above, virtually all pupils take GCSEs in English, mathematics and science. In addition, many schools also require that pupils take English literature, at least one modern foreign language, at least one design and technology subject, religious education (often a short, or 'half', course), and ICT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

Peregrinus · 27-11-2015 6:55pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Define 'religious'?

Do you mean 'go to Mass at Xmas, Easter, weddings, funerals and baptisms', and communion/confirmation celebrations?

In this context, I mean they are sufficiently religious to want to choose a school under religious patronage, which is what's relevant here.

We know this, among other things, from the large-scale consultation on patronage preference undertaken by the Dept of Education a couple of years ago, and much discussed on this board. In every district but one, a majority of parents of school-age and pre-school-age children expressed a preference for Catholic patronage. If you add in other religions patronages, then in every single district, a majority favoured religions patronage of one kind or another.

The majority was not 95%, and there is a substantial oversupply of
Catholic schools relative to demand in Ireland, and a substantial undersupply of other types, especially ET schools. But if 100% of the schools were secular, that would not reduce the mismatch between what parents want and what they get; it would substantially increase it.

looksee · 27-11-2015 9:40pm

The judge said: "It is not of itself unlawful to permit an RS GCSE to be created which is wholly devoted to the study of religion."

That's interesting, I have a GCE O level in Religious (Education) - I think it was called RE, in the 1960s. The school was essentially secular and RE was taught in the same way as Geography or History. I wonder when it stopped, if it is now being re-created.

expectationlost · 27-11-2015 9:45pm

looksee wrote: »

That's interesting, I have a GCE O level in Religious (Education) - I think it was called RE, in the 1960s. The school was essentially secular and RE was taught in the same way as Geography or History. I wonder when it stopped, if it is now being re-created.

how much time was spent Christianity verses others, I think it would be difficult to write a course and have it not be from Christian perspective.

looksee · 27-11-2015 9:55pm

expectationlost wrote: »

how much time was spent Christianity verses others, I think it would be difficult to write a course and have it not be from Christian perspective.

Its a long time ago, I really can't remember. I do recall some study of the OT that was taught in a neutral way rather than something one was supposed to believe. I was religious at the time but I remember the sense of difference between what was being taught and anything I was taught at my church. I suspect you are right about it being mostly relating to the Christian bible, not necessarily a Christian perspective.

Absolam · 28-11-2015 5:05am

recedite wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, there are numerous special interest schools in the state, such as steiner schools or foreign language schools, which don't receive state funding. Why are religious schools so special that they must be publicly funded?

I'm not saying special interest schools shouldn't receive public funding; if they conform with the State Curriculum they should (like Raheen Wood Steiner National School), just like religious and secular schools. To fund one kind and withdraw funding from the others would be to impose a particular kind of school.

recedite wrote: »

Could they not survive without state support? If religious schools are as important as you seem to think, religious parents will support the school upholding their own religion, privately.

I imagine they'd survive as well as secular schools would, if secular parents were prepared to support them privately. I don't think the absolute privatisation of provision for education is supported by the Constitution though... or in parents or pupils best interests.

recedite wrote: »

Majority religions which are endowed by the state should not benefit from this state support, even if the majority seem happy with it.

Well, I certainly support the fact that the State doesn't endow any religions, majority or otherwise. I disagree that only secular schools should receive State support though, nor can I see any reasonable basis for the opinion.

Absolam · 28-11-2015 5:06am

expectationlost wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34921857
whether its compulsory in some schools...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

I'm not sure that anything you've posted has anything to do with what I said?

recedite · 28-11-2015 12:03pm

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not saying special interest schools shouldn't receive public funding; if they conform with the State Curriculum they should (like Raheen Wood Steiner National School), just like religious and secular schools. To fund one kind and withdraw funding from the others would be to impose a particular kind of school.

Now that the school is conforming to the curriculum, and is also open to all members of the public, it is no longer a school that is only suitable for a particular special interest group.
Compare to say, a school that teaches through the Polish or perhaps the German language, or a school that tries to indoctrinate kids into one particular religion.

Absolam · 28-11-2015 1:24pm

recedite wrote: »

Now that the school is conforming to the curriculum, and is also open to all members of the public, it is no longer a school that is only suitable for a particular special interest group.
Compare to say, a school that teaches through the Polish or perhaps the German language, or a school that tries to indoctrinate kids into one particular religion.

Sure; as long as they provide the State curriculum I'm happy with the State continuing to fund them all; even ones that try to indoctrinate kids with secular dogma.

expectationlost · 28-11-2015 2:13pm

3 articles in the Irish Times.
Non-Catholic in a Catholic school http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/non-catholic-in-a-catholic-school-1.2446488
Diarmaid Ferriter: Schools system is blatantly sectarian http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/diarmaid-ferriter-schools-system-is-blatantly-sectarian-1.2446555
Analysis: Constitutional rights mean change in school patronage is slow http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/analysis-constitutional-rights-mean-change-in-school-patronage-is-slow-1.2446458 what about constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion?

Absolam · 29-11-2015 5:15am

expectationlost wrote: »

Analysis: Constitutional rights mean change in school patronage is slow http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/analysis-constitutional-rights-mean-change-in-school-patronage-is-slow-1.2446458 what about constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion?

What constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion?
A Constitutional right to to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school is a very far cry from a constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion.

RainyDay · 29-11-2015 11:34am

Peregrinus wrote: »

In this context, I mean they are sufficiently religious to want to choose a school under religious patronage, which is what's relevant here.

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

Cabaal · 29-11-2015 12:04pm

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

Its the "done thing" don't you know

Shrap · 29-11-2015 9:02pm

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

I'm sure many don't "choose" at all. After all, in most areas, there is no choice. Therefore, they more likely just breathe a sigh of relief that they went along with the in-laws about getting their kiddies baptised, and just fit in with the status quo, same as they did with their church marriage and signing up their kiddies to a religion that means nothing more to them than "the done thing". But that's just speculation, eh?! :rolleyes: And of course is a fine way for a state education system to be run :pac:

expectationlost · 29-11-2015 10:50pm

Minister calls for other options to religion class http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1129/750102-minister-calls-for-other-options-to-religion-class/ still spinning the line that this is a problem thats only cropped up recently

Hotblack Desiato · 30-11-2015 1:44am

If only Government Minsters had power, think of what they could do :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Peregrinus · 30-11-2015 3:41am

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

False dichotomy, there. Religion can't be a tradition, or have a traditional component?

Shrap wrote: »

I'm sure many don't "choose" at all. After all, in most areas, there is no choice . . .

You're missing the point. We're not talking here about the schools that parents do choose, out of those actually available. We're talking about what type of school parents say they would choose, if the choice were there. A substantial majority indicate that they would prefer a school under religious patronage.

Delirium · 30-11-2015 10:17am

Another article on the ongoing baptising for school access discussion.

Baptism: badge of identity or passport to education?

It is a noisy baptism day at a church in north Co Dublin. Parents, godparents, grandparents are gathered in the pews, resplendent in Sunday-best suits and colourful dresses.

Some of the parents are trying their best to keep control of their children. An older child is chewing on popcorn; another is absorbed with a game on a smartphone.

The priest, valiantly, explains how the sacrament of baptism is the most basic of all and the very basis for the Christian way of life.

“It’s like a day out at the movies,” says one less-than-impressed member of the congregation. “You’d wonder if some of the families have ever been in a church before.”

They’re sentiments Fr Gerry O’Connor is familiar with. He’s a priest in Cherry Orchard parish, a working class area where regular mass attendance is as low as 2 per cent of the Catholic population.

Yet the numbers who turn out for baptism, he estimates, could be approaching anywhere close to 90 per cent.

“It’s a tradition, a ritual. It’s a way of bringing the family together. I think that’s why we’ve an incredibly high turnout for baptisms,” he says.

“Some people who aren’t familiar with baptisms might think it’s noisy or children aren’t well-behaved. I enjoy the enthusiasm of it all. There might not be great religious practice, but people still feel a strong sense of connection to the church.”

RainyDay · 30-11-2015 1:12pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy, there. Religion can't be a tradition, or have a traditional component?

It's not an either/or dichotomy. Of course religion would have a traditional component, but you'd kind-of expect it to have a religious component too. I'm talking about families where there is effectively no religious component - and not practice of religion outside of the major ceremonies.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing the point. We're not talking here about the schools that parents do choose, out of those actually available. We're talking about what type of school parents say they would choose, if the choice were there. A substantial majority indicate that they would prefer a school under religious patronage.

Is that the majority of parents, or the majority of parents who bothered to turn out to vote on that issue?

Peregrinus · 30-11-2015 1:31pm

RainyDay wrote: »

It's not an either/or dichotomy. Of course religion would have a traditional component, but you'd kind-of expect it to have a religious component too. I'm talking about families where there is effectively no religious component - and not practice of religion outside of the major ceremonies.

Still with the false dichotomy! Why do you assume the religions component is not traditional, and the traditional component is not religious?

RainyDay wrote: »

Is that the majority of parents, or the majority of parents who bothered to turn out to vote on that issue?

It's the majority of parents who participated in the consultation. But I don't think you can assume that the ones who didn't participate all agreed with you, or even that they were more likely to agree with you than the ones that did. And as the pattern was fairly consistent. repeated in district after district, I don't think we can dismiss it as meaningless.

Zamboni · 03-12-2015 9:28am

The Fine Gael/Labour coalition government voted down the repeal of Section 7.3 (c) of the Equal Status Act last night.
This would have removed the ability for a school to discriminate and rank children based on their parents religious beliefs.

Basically they had the chance to bring about equal access to schools for children of athiest or minority faith parents.
They said no.

Please remember this in the ballot box at the next general election.

Penn · 03-12-2015 10:08am

Zamboni wrote: »

The Fine Gael/Labour coalition government voted down the repeal of Section 7.3 (c) of the Equal Status Act last night.
This would have removed the ability for a school to discriminate and rank children based on their parents religious beliefs.

Basically they had the chance to bring about equal access to schools for children of athiest or minority faith parents.
They said no.

Please remember this in the ballot box at the next general election.

Is there a way to see who exactly voted Yes/No?

Delirium · 03-12-2015 10:15am

Penn wrote: »

Is there a way to see who exactly voted Yes/No?

Just checked, and it should be available here when the data for yesterday is posted to the site.

Just find the topic under the date to see a summary and then it should also have a link to list how all members voted.

Zamboni · 03-12-2015 10:17am

Penn wrote: »

Is there a way to see who exactly voted Yes/No?

I'm trying to find that too.
I'll keep looking but would welcome anyone that has these details to post them.

Zamboni · 03-12-2015 10:22am

Until the full detailed list is published by name check out this image from the voting system.

You can see completely red on government side.

Shrap · 03-12-2015 10:47am

Zamboni wrote: »

Until the full detailed list is published by name check out this image from the voting system.

You can see completely red on government side.

This flies in the face of reason :mad: If they have something up their sleeve about the issue, it would be nice if they'd let us in on their thinking

I mean, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin was all about it this year, am I wrong?

Penn · 03-12-2015 11:49am

Equality, Eschmality. The Government has clearly shown that children's access to education is not equal to, and in fact is valued less than, maintaining the "ethos" of a school.

RainyDay · 03-12-2015 11:50am

Zamboni wrote: »

The Fine Gael/Labour coalition government voted down the repeal of Section 7.3 (c) of the Equal Status Act last night.
This would have removed the ability for a school to discriminate and rank children based on their parents religious beliefs.

Basically they had the chance to bring about equal access to schools for children of athiest or minority faith parents.
They said no.

Please remember this in the ballot box at the next general election.

You don't get to change the constitution in Government. Only the people can change the Constitution.

Personally, I'd be a huge supporter of any change to remove the ability of schools to discriminate, but it is by no mean certain that such a constitutional change would get through. This government had no explicit mandate to move on this.

expectationlost · 03-12-2015 3:42pm

Parishes still paying for schools suppose to be used by state for divestment https://shar.es/1cI8sr via irish catholic says they offered p buidlings for divestment but now are stilll paying to maintenance of them based on these questions from colm keaveny td https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-11-24a.1245&s=schools+speaker%3A333#g1246.q (and https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-12-01a.1368&s=schools+speaker%3A333#g1369.q)

Delirium · 03-12-2015 10:33pm

https://twitter.com/emma_okelly/status/672524518485835777

expectationlost · 03-12-2015 11:04pm

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/emma_okelly/status/672524518485835777

well thats to be expected gov votes one way the opposition the other

Delirium · 03-12-2015 11:17pm

expectationlost wrote: »

well thats to be expected gov votes one way the opposition the other but looks like FF abstained not seeing any FF names in there?

Dara Calleary and Charlie McConalogue both voted No.

Hotblack Desiato · 04-12-2015 12:01am

RainyDay wrote: »

You don't get to change the constitution in Government. Only the people can change the Constitution.

Nobody is proposing to change the constitution, because it's not required.

The provisions relating to religious organisations freely organising their own affairs refer to private institutions. Publicly funded schools are not 'their own affairs' and are already heavily regulated and overseen by the state. There is also a constitutional right to not be discriminated against by virtue of one's [non]belief.

This government had no explicit mandate to move on this.

It's in the Programme for Government, FFS!

recedite · 04-12-2015 10:11pm

Fair play to Roisin Shortall for giving this a go. I see her buddy in the Social Democrats, Stephen Donnelly didn't bother voting to support her amendment, the backstabber.
It was a very simple amendment; to delete the section of the "equal" status act that allows schools to use religious discrimination in their admission policies.
BTW, it is legislation not the constitution, therefore it is the job of the Dail, which is the legislature, to make any changes to it. A Yes vote would have deleted this bit from the legislation...

where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

recedite · 04-12-2015 10:38pm

Shrap wrote: »

This flies in the face of reason :mad: If they have something up their sleeve about the issue, it would be nice if they'd let us in on their thinking

They intend to introduce their own version, at some time in the future, which will allow some schools to maintain a discriminatory admissions policy, while others will be prevented.

"The Labour Party will be proposing an amendment to the Equal Status Acts, so that priority can only be given to school admission on the basis of religious exemptions, where the school can prove that using such a prioritisation is necessary to preserve their ethos."

The spokesperson added that it would "strike a much better balance, and will make sure that local schools prioritise local children for admission, regardless of their religion, while also allowing for an ongoing protection of the rights of minority religions".

For "local schools" read instead "RC schools, ET schools, and ETB/VEC schools" (ie schools for normal people).
For "minority religions" read instead "Prods, Jews and Muslims - the non RC religions which possess schools".

The main difference then is that this version would allow publicly funded schooling to continue more or less along religiously segregated lines, whereas the Shortall version would not.

From an atheist's or a Hindu's perspective, they would find themselves excluded from publicly funded CoI schools, but not RC schools.

expectationlost · 05-12-2015 1:32am

recedite wrote: »

Fair play to Roisin Shortall for giving this a go. I see her buddy in the Social Democrats, Stephen Donnelly didn't bother voting to support her amendment, the backstabber.

was he in the building?

you don't expect these opposition amendments to actually pass?

Mark Hamill · 05-12-2015 10:16am

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/emma_okelly/status/672524518485835777

That image is missing a load of names. Full list is here

JPNelsforearm · 05-12-2015 12:27pm

Is this really an issue? I went to a "catholic" all irish primary in the 90's, never baptised, a complete non believer. I didnt have to join in the class prayers every morning, wasnt forced to do anything, participated in the school nativity in the local church willingly as it was a bit of craic. It simply wasnt an issue.
I would think to change that, in favour of some diversity/inculsive PC all religions/ethics/philosophy nonsense would be simply exchanging one set of beliefs for another.

Shrap · 05-12-2015 12:35pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I would think to change that, in favour of some diversity/inculsive PC all religions/ethics/philosophy nonsense would be simply exchanging one set of beliefs for another.

No, it would change one set of beliefs being taught as fact, to an overview of many beliefs being as valid as each other.

Like you, I went to a religious school as an atheist and it never rubbed off, as did my kids. But we shouldn't had to have.

JPNelsforearm · 05-12-2015 12:50pm

Shrap wrote: »

No, it would change one set of beliefs being taught as fact, to an overview of many beliefs being as valid as each other.

Like you, I went to a religious school as an atheist and it never rubbed off, as did my kids. But we shouldn't had to have.

But they are doing it for PC reasons, to be "inclusive", why shoot for more rubbish, why bother teaching ramadan, hannukah etc etc. Its just more religion, that doesnt even have the "cultural/tradition" excuse thats used now, its just pure religion.
It seems to me to be heading more towards the (failed) multicultural set up they have in England, where they replaced church/state patronage and ended up with a heap of Saudi funded Islamic schools, the whole "trojan horse" scandal.

PopePalpatine · 05-12-2015 1:37pm

Last time I checked, Muslims haven't overrun the UK Ministry of Education.

The Randy Riverbeast · 05-12-2015 1:43pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But they are doing it for PC reasons, to be "inclusive", why shoot for more rubbish, why bother teaching ramadan, hannukah etc etc. Its just more religion, that doesnt even have the "cultural/tradition" excuse thats used now, its just pure religion.
It seems to me to be heading more towards the (failed) multicultural set up they have in England, where they replaced church/state patronage and ended up with a heap of Saudi funded Islamic schools, the whole "trojan horse" scandal.

You have to teach religion and have some form of denomination to get state funding. That leaves either segregating (allowing a saudi funded patron to have a school mostly funded by the state run a school) or being "PC" as you put it and treating everyone the same.

inocybe · 05-12-2015 3:35pm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Is this really an issue? I went to a "catholic" all irish primary in the 90's, never baptised, a complete non believer. I didnt have to join in the class prayers every morning, wasnt forced to do anything, participated in the school nativity in the local church willingly as it was a bit of craic. It simply wasnt an issue.
I would think to change that, in favour of some diversity/inculsive PC all religions/ethics/philosophy nonsense would be simply exchanging one set of beliefs for another.

It's a big issue when a child is excluded from their nearest school in favour of those with baptismal certs.

School patronage

Comments