To Christen or Not?

giftgrub

Little one on the way in the new year. Its our first one, the conversation came up the other night about a Christening

Both myself and my wife are against the idea, as non church goers ourselves we feel our child shouldn't have a religion foisted on him from birth.

However on the other side it might be easier for schools, then theres the parents, mine couldn't give a Castlemaine XXXX, but the in laws will throw a fit and start looking for 666 tatoos on the scalp

Has anyone here been in the same situation?

Trinity

giftgrub wrote: »

Little one on the way in the new year. Its our first one, the conversation came up the other night about a Christening

Both myself and my wife are against the idea, as non church goers ourselves we feel our child shouldn't have a religion foisted on him from birth.

However on the other side it might be easier for schools, then theres the parents, mine couldn't give a Castlemaine XXXX, but the in laws will throw a fit and start looking for 666 tatoos on the scalp

Has anyone here been in the same situation?

I'm afraid i havent been in that position my 2 kids are christened however the bit that stands out to me is that you say you and your wife are against it.

Wheres the problem? This is your child, your decision. If it was your wife against it and you wanted it i would say there is a problem, or vice cersa. The inlaws need to respect your decision and its a very good decision at the end of the day. Stand united and the family will come around.

Mine are christened as its more or less tradition but i dont attend church either.

Sleepy

Your child your decision. My three month old daughter hasn't been christened and unless she chooses to be after the age of 18, she won't be. If people who don't believe in religion continue to pander to the Catholic church by baptising their children in order to get them into schools, then their grip over our education system will continue against all common sense.

miders

dont christian your child for the sake of school enrolement,if you have no beliefs or no intention of teaching the christian way.

stop making a mockery out of religion as some people truely believe.

congratulations on your baby and i hope you have a wonderful birth.

B0X

Sleepy wrote: »

My three month old daughter hasn't been christened and unless she chooses to be after the age of 18, she won't be.

I'm not religious but i think she could make a rational choice well before 18, I know i did.

As for the OP, i don't think there is much preference given to catholic children in schools, especially now unless i've been missing something?

getz

giftgrub wrote: »

Little one on the way in the new year. Its our first one, the conversation came up the other night about a Christening

Both myself and my wife are against the idea, as non church goers ourselves we feel our child shouldn't have a religion foisted on him from birth.

However on the other side it might be easier for schools, then theres the parents, mine couldn't give a Castlemaine XXXX, but the in laws will throw a fit and start looking for 666 tatoos on the scalp

Has anyone here been in the same situation?

many years ago my wife and i was in the same situation she catholic me church of england so we took him to the babtist church for christening[wrong word] they dedicate the child to the church untill he is old enough to chose for him or her self -this way the child will not meet any stigma from other people well my lad is now 30 years old and he and it worked for him

Lizzykins

Fair play to you for having an opinion and being prepared to stick to it. I christened my first and went through hassle from in-laws when I decided not to christen the second. I did in the end for the sake of peace and in the long run I'm glad I did even though we're not hugely religious.

I have a friend whose brother didn't christen his three kids and his mother gives him incredible grief.

My own brother hasn't christened his two year old because he isn't "bothered". Mind you same guy got married in church with all the trimmings! He lives abroad and there are no inlaws on either side so no grief there.

It's up to everyone to make up their own mind I think but I'd be fairly certain that a child brought up in a non religious house wouldn't chose to follow a particular religion when they came of age unless the parents were very proactive in teaching said child about all religions.

axel rose

miders wrote: »

dont christian your child for the sake of school enrolement,if you have no beliefs or no intention of teaching the christian way.

stop making a mockery out of religion as some people truely believe.

congratulations on your baby and i hope you have a wonderful birth.

I admire the theory but not the practice. As long as my taxes are spent on those bloody schools I do whatever it takes to get my child into the school I want.
If you havent figured out yet I am not RC, my husband really wanted my son baptised and explained to the priest that I was neither supportive nor objected. These guys must be on commission because he christened him knowing this.

I have full confidence that my son will be more understanding, compassionate and spiritual than that church can teach.

I know my husband was trying to keep his family happy and to me it was nothing more than a bit of water with a piece of paper that will make it easier to get into schools. So I just didnt care either way. (take that you stupid church! )

Orion

giftgrub wrote: »

then theres the parents,
Has anyone here been in the same situation?

Been there done that. It's nothing to do with your parents - it's your choice for your child. I had to have a word with my father more than once for filling my kids with Catholic propaganda. At the end of the day you choose how you raise your children. I would say that if you are not religious then it would be counter-productive to go through a ceremony that you don't believe in.

If my two decide that they want to be part of a religion when they're mature* enough to make that decision that's up to them - I won't object to their choice. But we refused to make that choice for them when they can't decide for themselves.

*maturity does not mean 18 - it means being rational/intelligent enough to be able to make a rational decision on it at whatever age.

byhookorbycrook

most schools will take a child whatever religion-or lack thereof, it only becomes an issue if school is oversubscribed and that is not happening so much anymore.Look at any school you would be interested in and ask what the enrolment policy is. If you are interested in any schools, put the name down asap. I know of one school (NOT fee-paying) where 6 months old was too late!!You can always take the name off the list later if you so desire. Fair play to ye ,not being lip-service "religious". You'd be amazed the no. of children making communion who haven't been in a church since baptism!!

axel rose

Most of the better schools have waiting lists so Ill be a complete hyprcrite. Just as long as the church knows it. I have no respect at all for the fact that the church takes my taxes for its schools and then decide that my child should not automatically get in based on his religion (or lack thereof). If my money helps to run the school then my child (well any child) should have an equal chance of getting in.
If any church wants to have full control of its entrance policy then it should be funded by that church.

Rev Hellfire

I'm with axel on this.

The rights and the wrongs of it don't really matter. What does is that you secure for your child the best education and if by christening your child you can secure a place (even at the expense of a more principled objector like Sleepy sry sleepy its war out there) then its a simple decision.

Half an hour to an hour of a ceremony coupled with a party afterwards seems like a good compromise to ensure your child gets firmly on the education ladder. Its not ideal I grant you, but I refer to take a pragmatic approach and stand up for my principles when they don't shoot me in the foot

Orion

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm with axel on this.

The rights and the wrongs of it don't really matter. What does is that you secure for your child the best education and if by christening your child you can secure a place (even at the expense of a more principled objector like Sleepy sry sleepy its war out there) then its a simple decision.

Half an hour to an hour of a ceremony coupled with a party afterwards seems like a good compromise to ensure your child gets firmly on the education ladder. Its not ideal I grant you, but I refer to take a pragmatic approach and stand up for my principles when they don't shoot me in the foot

Unfortunately it's that kind of thinking that is slowing down the opening of non-church run primary schools. We didn't Christian our children in the full knowledge that there may be an issue later on. However we did pre-enrol them (at 3 days old) in an Educate Together school in Celbridge. Luckily ET then decided to open one in Maynooth (where we live). I was involved from the very start and I'm now on the BoM so I know that my chidren are getting a good education.

I understand what your saying but I think it could have negative ramifications. If there's no non-Catholics in an area then the DES may think that there is no need for an alternative school so you're left with no choice but the local parish school no matter how good or bad that school may be. And even if you're not Catholic, if it's the only school in an area then there are rules regarding accepting non-Catholics into it. All children have a constitutional right to a primary education so the school has to accommodate all children in those circumstances.

TargetWidow

I feel your pain OP!! I didn't christen my daughter now almost 9mths. My parents are not alive and would not have had too big an issue with it anyway but my husbands mother keeps harping on about it. I decided to shut her up about it the other day and said that if she was that gone on Catholicism then why didn't she bring her son to be confirmed when his classmates were doing it? She hasn't commented since. I dont know what she expected... I mean we married on the beach in a largely pagan ceremony!!! And as for the school entrance stuff, it's much less of an issue in this day and age. My local public health nurse tried telling me I would affect the childs development and social abilities by not christening (my husband nearly had to be tied!) I politely informed her that there are all creeds and faiths in the country these days and that if she carried on like that with some of the parents of other faiths she might not be as politely received as she was in my house. When she tried it during the second visit I reported her to her superiors. None of her business. Haven't seen her since!Happy days!:D
And I do agree that part of what makes Catholicism so unattractive for me is the number of people who can only manage to practise the religion for maybe the one hour a week while they are in the church or else the other ceremonies that mark rites of passage. I just think everyone should have some nuts and follow their convictions or lack thereof. I dont believe; therefore I dont attend. People are surprisingly ok about it when they get to know you and realize that you are actually quite a nice person apart from the spinning head and screaming when sprinkled with holy water!!!;)

granturismo

Macros42 wrote: »

All children have a constitutional right to a primary education so the school has to accommodate all children in those circumstances.

A specific school does not have to accommodate every child. In 2005, we were told by Dept of Ed that this is true but that it is the parents' responsibility to find a school that will accept the child - that school doesnt have to be the closest to the child's house.

We were in the same position as the OP and decided to baptise our child (both of us were baptised as Catholics but both are nonpracticising). In order of our preference at the time, based on school ethos and standard of education - we were refused entry to an Educate Together because of our child's age and the high enrollment numbers, refused entry to CoI primary because of our religion, refused entry to our local Catholic primary because of age and high enrollment numbers and accepted to another catholic school close to our work. At the time the last school did not reject any child based on religion or address - circumstances may now change with cutbacks in temp teaching staff.

All our children have since been baptised - for us it was a choice to ensure our children had options re access to education - each to their own. If we were starting out again it would depend on the schooling options available locally or en route to work.

CDfm

miders wrote: »

dont christian your child for the sake of school enrolement,if you have no beliefs or no intention of teaching the christian way.

stop making a mockery out of religion as some people truely believe.

congratulations on your baby and i hope you have a wonderful birth.

i agree - i think if you are not going to bring your child up as a catholic you shouldnt get the kid baptised. It would be deceptive to do so and could deprive a true catholic child of educational and faith opportunities.That you are concidering it is fairly naff and deceptive.

Rev Hellfire

CDfm wrote: »

i agree - i think if you are not going to bring your child up as a catholic you shouldnt get the kid baptised. It would be deceptive to do so and could deprive a true catholic child of educational and faith opportunities.That you are concidering it is fairly naff and deceptive.

Hardly, they are merely using a system, one which could be argued is discriminatory in nature to begin with. When faced with an imperfect system you sometimes have to make imperfect choices.
As for the comment of depriving a child of his faith, that should come from the home and not be the sole providence of the school.

CDfm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Hardly, they are merely using a system, one which could be argued is discriminatory in nature to begin with. When faced with an imperfect system you sometimes have to make imperfect choices.
As for the comment of depriving a child of his faith, that should come from the home and not be the sole providence of the school.

hardly Rev- they are lying to deprive a catholic child of the benefits. However you dress it up its dishonest and in doing so are also disrespecting the sarcraments of the Catholic Church.

I think its a bit more then imperfect choices.

axel rose

CDfm wrote: »

hardly Rev- they are lying to deprive a catholic child of the benefits. However you dress it up its dishonest and in doing so are also disrespecting the sarcraments of the Catholic Church.

I think its a bit more then imperfect choices.

How is it dishonest when the church knows what is going on? My child was baptised by a priest that knew i had no intention of promoting the religion.
cdfm do you have a realistic solution to parents? YOU may respect the sacrements but I dont give a crap about them so dont care if i abuse them to get what I need (my child in a school of my choosing). I would prefer if I didnt have to do it but have no choice. Catholic children arent being deprived- thata the point! They are at the top of the list of the majority of schools in the country.

Why is the church and government putting parents in this position? The church has no business in state run institutions. If my taxes help run the school then my child should have an equal opportunity of getting into that school. If the same protocol was used in employing adults it would be discrimintory but its ok to do it to children?

CDfm

axel rose wrote: »

How is it dishonest when the church knows what is going on? My child was baptised by a priest that knew i had no intention of promoting the religion.
cdfm do you have a realistic solution to parents? YOU may respect the sacrements but I dont give a crap about them so dont care if i abuse them to get what I need (my child in a school of my choosing). I would prefer if I didnt have to do it but have no choice. Catholic children arent being deprived- thata the point! They are at the top of the list of the majority of schools in the country.

Why is the church and government putting parents in this position? The church has no business in state run institutions. If my taxes help run the school then my child should have an equal opportunity of getting into that school. If the same protocol was used in employing adults it would be discrimintory but its ok to do it to children?

There are 2 issues here.

The first being Baptism -IMHO it devalues the sarcraments such as baptism and saying anything else is twaddle. You want the benefits without none of the responsibility.

The second being the state as educator-it is not. Under Art 42 of the Constitution the parents not the state are the educators.The state guarantees primary education.

LIke is or not you are being deceptive and stretching the support services of a church you dont support materially or as a volunteer. Dont you think this is dishonest.

Say in the case of child abuse would you or other parents like you blame the church or yourselves for using up the resourses for your own needs. Thats iresponsible -because with baptism and education the church cant turn people -even people like you -away -no matter how suspect they think your motives are.

Rev Hellfire

CDfm wrote: »

hardly Rev- they are lying to deprive a catholic child of the benefits. However you dress it up its dishonest and in doing so are also disrespecting the sarcraments of the Catholic Church.

I think its a bit more then imperfect choices.

Its not really a dishonest action since the requirement is to be baptised into the Christian faith (my understanding is that you aren't baptised a catholic, i may be wrong). The restrictions are on the child not the parent, now I'll fully admit that its a case of obeying the letter if not the spirit of the law. Though I can't see the issue, it is after all win-win for everyone. The parents get the school while child is exposed to Christian values/beliefs (which I would imagine is a positive action from your perspective).

For the OP to bring it back on track, they have two things to weigh up, the quality of education coupled with the religious elements it may entail in a Christian school vs their atheistic principles. (I'm assuming they have a particular school in mind for enrolment, I know I did)

I would argue that the level of religious instruction is so minimal; limited to fuzzy ideas such as god/jesus loves you, and mommy and daddy. Added that with the inclusion of your own supervision and input on the subject that its a non-issue for those who aren't militant in their beliefs.

CDfm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its not really a dishonest action since the requirement is to be baptised into the Christian faith (my understanding is that you aren't baptised a catholic, i may be wrong). The restrictions are on the child not the parent, now I'll fully admit that its a case of obeying the letter if not the spirit of the law. Though I can't see the issue, it is after all win-win for everyone.

Well Rev- but the Church is funded by its members and by the volunteer work of its members. Right,limited resourses.

But say if something happens a child with all the resourses use up on kids whose parents dont contribute or volunteer. Surely those parents bear some responsibility and are part of the problem,

Rev Hellfire

CDfm wrote: »

Well Rev- but the Church is funded by its members and by the volunteer work of its members. Right,limited resourses.

Which is fine, the funding of the church is separate from the state.

CDfm wrote: »

But say if something happens a child with all the resourses use up on kids whose parents dont contribute or volunteer. Surely those parents bear some responsibility and are part of the problem,

I'll assume you're talking specifically about school funding here, which is provided by the state. Unless you intend to keep records of all contributions by all parents and exclude non-contributing Christians as well its a non-issue.

Though tbh we're straying well off the topic so I'll bow out now since its not really that suitable for this forum imho.

gaeilgegrinds

I'd say don't. You won't be happy with a school that foists a Catholic ethos on your child if that is not your belief anyway so an alternative is the way to go. And why christen if ye don't believe? Ye'll feel at odds with the precedings on the day in my opinion anyway.

philologos

OP - As a Christian here. I want to tell you, there is no point in making vows that you don't believe in, even if you are making them to a God you do not believe in. Be honest with yourself, and if you do decide to believe later in your life, all well and good. However, don't feign belief.

CDfm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Which is fine, the funding of the church is separate from the state.


I'll assume you're talking specifically about school funding here, which is provided by the state. Unless you intend to keep records of all contributions by all parents and exclude non-contributing Christians as well its a non-issue.

Though tbh we're straying well off the topic so I'll bow out now since its not really that suitable for this forum imho.

No Rev - its not off topic. The OP raised the the issue of education and links it to getting the baby baptised.

the schools were largely build by the churches for education of catholic children.

when free secondary education was introduced in 1967 - the state didnt have the infrastructure or funds to provide and manage schools.

so - given that church attendences etc are down churches might want to rethink their criteria of how they provide facilities or even baptism as they do in the USA -would it concern you if your child was excluded.

I can imagine it must be weird to delegate control of your children to a church where you know nobody and dont subscribe to the ethos. I wouldnt do it myself.Its a difficult topic.

metrovelvet

So hold on, if your child isnt christened then they wont let you attend school? Isnt it illegal for kids not to go to school? I don't understand this.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

So hold on, if your child isnt christened then they wont let you attend school? Isnt it illegal for kids not to go to school? I don't understand this.

Many Irish Schools are owned and operated by religous orders/communities.

In the UK they would be called faith schools -in practice they are open to all. However, enrolement criteria will normally be based on a mission statement and baptism and the practice of a religion can be mandatory if that is the ethos of the school.

Catholic schools are reasonably tolerant and dont turn away students - but say for instance if the parents of a child insisted their child had to leave the class during prayers or religous class that cou;d be deemed to be disruptive and it would be up to the parents to find a school to accomadate their requirements.

The education is free and the state pays in the form of capitation and salaries. However =the schools have to be managed staffed etc and control is retained over that function.

metrovelvet

Okk but they can't be turned away from admission? I know most Irish schools are Catholic or Protestant run and outside of Dublin you don't really have choices between religious and secular schools, so if you are in this situation where the only school is Catholic or Protestant and you don't have a baptism cert can they turn you away? And if this is the case, where the only school in town is religious and state run, then it would be only fair imo that students should be able to opt out of religious ceremony. In the catholic school I went to, there was the odd jew or greek orthodox, and they would not have been made to attend lenten masses or other obligations. Similarly, muslims in NYC public schools are exempt from the secular obligation to stay in the classroom and pay attention to the teacher during prayer time.

If the faith school is state run and does not permit admission on the grounds of not the right religion, then doesnt this add up to discimination and a big hot law suit waiting to happen?

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

If the faith school is state run and does not permit admission on the grounds of not the right religion, then doesnt this add up to discimination and a big hot law suit waiting to happen?

Its the parents obligation to educate the child.

A faith school is run by the religous order or catholic community oe whatever denomination owns it.

A parent can home school a child or move to an area where therte is a school that suits them.Its up to you

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Its the parents obligation to educate the child.

A faith school is run by the religous order or catholic community oe whatever denomination owns it.

A parent can home school a child or move to an area where therte is a school that suits them.Its up to you

Does Ireland allow home schooling?

BTW I have no problem with my child having a catholic education or protestant for that matter, and the christening, etc etc, I am just wondering a lot about how this works. If the state is paying for it, doesnt the state own it? The state does pay, run and regulare the schools does it not?

Nevyn

Yes we have home schooling.

The sate funds the schools but they are run by thier patrons who are either catholic/prodestant church or a body set up to be a patron be it a collective or a charity.


If there is only 1 school in a town and it is patroned by the catholic church and there are 20 school places and 21 chidlren applying they can discrimate as they choose fit re thier enrollement policy. So if 1 of the children is not baptised catholic then yes they will go to the bottom of the list and in all likely hood will not be offered a place in the school and the parents will have to look elsewhere even if it means an hours drive or more
to get the child to school unless they homeschool.

Sangre

Jakkass wrote: »

OP - As a Christian here. I want to tell you, there is no point in making vows that you don't believe in, even if you are making them to a God you do not believe in. Be honest with yourself, and if you do decide to believe later in your life, all well and good. However, don't feign belief.

There is a point though. Getting their children into the best school.

cdfm wrote:

Many Irish Schools are owned and operated by religous orders/communities.

3000 of 3200 primary schools are operated by the church. Virtually all of them receiving state funding. Doesn't give the non baptised much choice, especially non-urban parents.

axel rose

CDfm wrote: »

There are 2 issues here.

The first being Baptism -IMHO it devalues the sarcraments such as baptism and saying anything else is twaddle. You want the benefits without none of the responsibility.

The second being the state as educator-it is not. Under Art 42 of the Constitution the parents not the state are the educators.The state guarantees primary education.

LIke is or not you are being deceptive and stretching the support services of a church you dont support materially or as a volunteer. Dont you think this is dishonest.

Say in the case of child abuse would you or other parents like you blame the church or yourselves for using up the resourses for your own needs. Thats iresponsible -because with baptism and education the church cant turn people -even people like you -away -no matter how suspect they think your motives are.

cdfm, Your missing the point-I dont care about the sacrements! I just want my child at the top of the list in the best school in the area.I dont care about telling lies to the RC church they dont give me an alternative! (home schooling is unrealistic for the majority of families)

How can I be streaching the churches support services when I have paid for them through my taxes? Its not like Ill be phoning the priest for advice on my childs maths homework :pac:.

Give me an alternative to get my child into the best school


Its not the best idea to bring up child abuse when discussing the church and the states resources-My taxes a also paying for that too! :mad:

philologos

axel rose wrote: »

cdfm, Your missing the point-I dont care about the sacrements! I just want my child at the top of the list in the best school in the area.I dont care about telling lies to the RC church they dont give me an alternative! (home schooling is unrealistic for the majority of families)

How can I be streaching the churches support services when I have paid for them through my taxes? Its not like Ill be phoning the priest for advice on my childs maths homework :pac:.

Give me an alternative to get my child into the best school


Its not the best idea to bring up child abuse when discussing the church and the states resources-My taxes a also paying for that too! :mad:

Just out of interest, what if you weren't just telling lies before the RCC, but you were actually telling lies before God also. Would you be as comfortable to do so?

I went to a COI school, and there were quite a few that I know who weren't baptized, particularly Pentecostals who I know got baptized in their teenage years. How did they do it, if people are going to be so rigid about it.

Also, if you bring your child to a denominational school, they are probably going to end up getting some form of religious instruction anyway. Would you be happy as a unbelieving parent to do that?

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes we have home schooling.

The sate funds the schools but they are run by thier patrons who are either catholic/prodestant church or a body set up to be a patron be it a collective or a charity.


If there is only 1 school in a town and it is patroned by the catholic church and there are 20 school places and 21 chidlren applying they can discrimate as they choose fit re thier enrollement policy. So if 1 of the children is not baptised catholic then yes they will go to the bottom of the list and in all likely hood will not be offered a place in the school and the parents will have to look elsewhere even if it means an hours drive or more
to get the child to school unless they homeschool.

I am not saying its ideal.

But children of non faith parents in a faith school are simply paying guests - you dont go to a vegetarian resteraunt for a steak.

Its not patroned by the church it is owned by the church. In other words the church has guaranteed free education which it does have the resourses to provide.

In practice in that situation a catholic school will try to accomadate a child but religion is part of the package.

CDfm

axel rose wrote: »

cdfm, Your missing the point-I dont care about the sacrements! I just want my child at the top of the list in the best school in the area.I dont care about telling lies to the RC church they dont give me an alternative! (home schooling is unrealistic for the majority of families)

How can I be streaching the churches support services when I have paid for them through my taxes? Its not like Ill be phoning the priest for advice on my childs maths homework :pac:.


Its not the best idea to bring up child abuse when discussing the church and the states resources-My taxes a also paying for that too! :mad:

The point is the church relies on the faithful to survive - so the educational resourses and management time and its capital assets are being used up by people like you. Do you ever drop in a contribution to the church at Xmas or Easter- n0 but you want the best school.

The churches dont get your taxes the government does and the government doesnt own the schools. It pays teachers but it doesnt own the buildings or manage them -something you dont make a contribution for.

Your child is a guest. What I am saying is that if the church lacks the funds to do its "management" job properly maybe some of the fault lies with the parents.You get the use of church property and management time for free and dont value it.

Yet if there was a problem you would blame the church. Its not comfortable when its put to you that way.

axel rose

cdfm- In your opinion I lied to God, in my opinion I lied to the church. We both have different belief systems. I dont expect you to quit eating pork because it goes against the beliefs of the muslim and jewish religions.

BTW our wonderful taxes also pay for the upkeep of the school. My taxes go to the government but they hand them over to the catholic educational facilities, they in turn discriminate against non catholics. IN addition to our taxes the school will also demand a 'voluntary' fee. Why wouldnt I value something I contribute towards?

Maybe I didnt make myself clear, my husband is a catholic (non-practicing), I am not a catholic. As for the comment that my son would be a guest......Its a school not a bleeding golf club! He will be a student equal and on a par with his fellow baptised and non christian students.

To reiterate- what choice do I have? I live in a rural area so my choices are very limited.
Im not sure what you mean by 'a problem' where I would blame the church. I intend to be very involved in my sons spritual upbringing and will take full responsibility for it.

CDfm

axel rose wrote: »

cdfm- In your opinion I lied to God, in my opinion I lied to the church. We both have different belief systems. I dont expect you to quit eating pork because it goes against the beliefs of the muslim and jewish religions.

BTW our wonderful taxes also pay for the upkeep of the school. My taxes go to the government but they hand them over to the catholic educational facilities, they in turn discriminate against non catholics. IN addition to our taxes the school will also demand a 'voluntary' fee. Why wouldnt I value something I contribute towards?

Maybe I didnt make myself clear, my husband is a catholic (non-practicing), I am not a catholic. As for the comment that my son would be a guest......Its a school not a bleeding golf club! He will be a student equal and on a par with his fellow baptised and non christian students.

To reiterate- what choice do I have? I live in a rural area so my choices are very limited.
Im not sure what you mean by 'a problem' where I would blame the church. I intend to be very involved in my sons spritual upbringing and will take full responsibility for it.

Axel Rose - I think you misunderstand me.

What I am saying is that the majority of the schools are owned by religous groups and essentially are there for Catholics.

Essentially non-catholics get educated - but you cant just cherry pick what you want.You have to follow the schools ethos.

My comment is more general then spiritual. The state never has had the capital resourses to provide a state run school service and doesnt own the school properties.

The church does not look for an additional fee - so essentially you and your husband are using church resourses -like it or not. The role of the church is the prpogation of the faith and not to educate your child.

TargetWidow

giftgrub wrote: »

Has anyone here been in the same situation?

Personally speaking Giftgrub, I live in a rural village with about 600 houses in the townland. Two rural primaries both church run. Tiny two and three room affairs with more than one year per room. (One is about to close due to small numbers). I have no intention of Christening just to gain a place in either of them. The next nearest non denominational school is 10 miles away and the discussion here has put me thinking that I should get moving and get my almost 9month old's name down for that school. It's a short drive in the mornings. For me it's not an issue. In my own experience the quality of education in these tiny school run primaries is not fantastic anyway.

Out of curiousity though... if the buildings are owned by the Church, then why is the Dept of Education funding school extension buildings? Are our taxes not contributing towards those parts of the schools? Just curious. I recently coughed up €50 for a ticket for a raffle to raise funds for one of these schools new heating boiler. I don't even have a child in the school but the message was clear. You run a business in this community; you had better contribute. A community building was sold, and the €50,000 of the proceeds were given towards the re-roofing project this summer. I worked in another school where parents paid for a proper art teacher to come in for a day a week. These schools are being contributed to constantly by all the community. It would be dirty pool for the BOM to reject any prospective student on the basis of faith or lack thereof. Why not try to get onto the BOM?

axel rose

cdfm once again what choice do I have? My child needs a school place. We live near to a good (but catholic) school. He needs to be in that school, other schools in the area are all catholic but not as good and not as close.The schools may be there for catholics but what the hell are non catholic children to do? Hope that the bottom of the list is good enough to get their child into the school? I will do whatever it takes to get what I need for my child. (If the schools are there for catholics why are non catholics paying for it?)

I contribute towards the upkeep of the school and contribute towards the wages of the staff. The department of education maintains the buildings along with the voluntary contributions I already mentioned.

Dont the vast majority of catholics cherrypick to suit their needs? (well every catholic I ever met)

CDfm

axel rose wrote: »

cdfm once again what choice do I have? My child needs a school place. We live near to a good (but catholic) school. He needs to be in that school, other schools in the area are all catholic but not as good and not as close.The schools may be there for catholics but what the hell are non catholic children to do? Hope that the bottom of the list is good enough to get their child into the school? I will do whatever it takes to get what I need for my child. (If the schools are there for catholics why are non catholics paying for it?)

I contribute towards the upkeep of the school and contribute towards the wages of the staff. The department of education maintains the buildings along with the voluntary contributions I already mentioned.

Dont the vast majority of catholics cherrypick to suit their needs? (well every catholic I ever met)

I am not saying there is a choice.

What I am saying is that when you see posts dissing churches - its easy to dismiss the good thats done and the resourses it fired at education.

Its just when I see the church being criticised as with the recent calls for the Bishop of Cloynes resignation. Imagine the what if....... your child couldnt get a place.

axel rose

What if the church stepped back and let the department of education have full control over the schools that they finance?

You admit that I (among many other parents) are left without a choice, so why criticise me when my back is against the wall?

I dont want to start criticising the church for a couple of reasons, one, its going way off topic and for another I dont think I could stop. Whats right for you is not for everyone but the churches control of the schools does not allow for that very thinking.

CDfm

axel rose wrote: »

What if the church stepped back and let the department of education have full control over the schools that they finance?

You admit that I (among many other parents) are left without a choice, so why criticise me when my back is against the wall?

I dont want to start criticising the church for a couple of reasons, one, its going way off topic and for another I dont think I could stop. Whats right for you is not for everyone but the churches control of the schools does not allow for that very thinking.

Its not that simple - as the churches are there as faith schools-the churches purpose.

Why would the churches want to handover ownership of its assets.

If you feel so strongly why dont you and people like you start your own school -thats what you want. So why not.

Would you give away your house or your car for nothing?

axel rose

I dont think the church owns the schools outright. (as Targetwidow mentions) The dept pays for the extensions, prefabs, entire new buildings as well as maintainence.
If the church was willing to pay for my replacement car, petrol, insurance and upkeep I would gladly give it back!

CDfm

axel rose wrote: »

I dont think the church owns the schools outright. (as Targetwidow mentions) The dept pays for the extensions, prefabs, entire new buildings as well as maintainence.
If the church was willing to pay for my replacement car, petrol, insurance and upkeep I would gladly give it back!

Aha -Axel. The church had and has something of value.

I think you are clutching at straws.

Why should they hand it over they are in a position of power.

jill_valentine

Good churchy thinking, that. Holding education itself hostage...

Nevyn

In most cases the patron owns the land the school is built on.

taram

CDfm wrote: »

The church does not look for an additional fee - so essentially you and your husband are using church resourses -like it or not. The role of the church is the prpogation of the faith and not to educate your child.

I'll take a guess and say that I'm probably one of the most recent leavers from both primary and secondary schools with a Catholic ethos. The board of managments (which consisted of members of religious orders) on both schools I attended asked for contributions at least 10 times throughout my school career. What did this go towards so? The dept of education paid for our hall and such.

If the role of the church is that of faith, who is left to educate our children? Parents? My mother has teaching experience, so my sister and I am okay, what about Joe down the road who lives with his dad who can barely read? Is that fair? Plus I know of one couple who would be able to home school, all my other friends have to work to cover mortages etc.

Personally I dislike religious based schooling based on my personal experience, my primary school spent more time on religion in 6th class than entrance exams, my entire class did extremely poorly despite having fantastic 5th class results for our age. Sunday school type systems should be teaching our children about Jesus, not our teachers, and certainly not at the deteriment of other subjects. I'm happy for there to be a few hours a week set aside for those who wish to study religious faith in secondary school, but I'm sure God wants them to have faith and love to study it, not because it's timetabled.

axel rose

CDfm wrote: »

Aha -Axel. The church had and has something of value.

I think you are clutching at straws.

Why should they hand it over they are in a position of power.

At least we agree on this one! The church is unwilling to hand over the schools because they want control of the children spirituality. (How christian :rolleyes:) If they want to try and exploit me and my child, whats so wrong with me doing the same? I see it as nothing more than a marketing tactic and will abuse as such.
His spiritually will be instructed by me. It will be fun deconstructing the cadacisim!

Sangre

CDfm wrote: »

Why should they hand it over they are in a position of power.

I don't know. Maybe they could use the proceeds as part of paying compensation in the sex abuse scandals, as opposed to the measly 5% they've paid now. If the state had any balls it would sue them for the full amount owed instead of footing the taxpayer with the bill.