Primary schools - help!

Goduznt Xzst

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What a pointless question.

It is not. I know many people who weren't baptized as Catholics, a few in primary school, more in secondary and a lot in college. It would be foolish of me to assume anything of the upbringing of the people who post on this forum.

The reason I asked is that I'd be willing to bet a very high percentage of current Atheists that have no issues with baptizing their child and supporting this unfair and discriminatory system where also baptized themselves.

It harks back to discussions I've had previously with people on corporal punishment. The advocates of it and it's use on their own children tended to be people who had endured it also as a child, but felt it did not detrimentally affect their upbringing, so they would use it likewise on their own children.

The people against it, for the majority, tended to either never of been struck as a child, or had been struck in such a manner as to make them feel it had affected them detrimentally (this is changing however due to it being made illegal in a lot of countries, and the widespread negative media towards it)

However, like with baptism out of paranoia that you will not be able to secure your child with an education, exposure to it during childhood has lead many adults to see it as less harmful than it actually is.

Zillah

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I never thought this was a real problem.
We had two guys in our school who were Morman and they just read a bible during religious class. The two (possibly) three lads who were no way religious were sent to the library and had to read classics.

The problem is that because of the way the system works, there could quite possibly have been several non-religious kids who had applied before those Catholics and Mormans but got booted off the list.

That's pretty much the definition of discrimination.



I find Goduxnt Xzst's attitude a little bit strange. Is lying to a corrupt school really that big a deal for you?

I for one would have absolutely no problem lying my ass off to the priest, the bishop, the principle and the old lollypop lady if it allows me to bypass an awful discriminatory system.

However I wouldn't get my child baptised. I'd fake it. I'd pretend they were baptised. I'd photoshop a baptismal cert. How much checking do they actually do on these things?

If it came up later...well, I'd point out to the principle that the headline "Child thrown out of school for not being Catholic" would perhaps reflect badly on him.

Rev Hellfire

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The reason I asked is that I'd be willing to bet a very high percentage of current Atheists that have no issues with baptizing their child and supporting this unfair and discriminatory system where also baptized themselves.

So somehow these drops of water on their head have afflicted their mental faculties, preventing them from seeing the errors of the ways.

If I had met you on a country lane, with a lump of straw and some old clothes tucked under your arm I couldn't have been more surprised.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

However, like with baptism out of paranoia that you will not be able to secure your child with an education, exposure to it during childhood has lead many adults to see it as less harmful than it actually is.

Perhaps it's allowed them to see how harmful it actually isn't?

Mena

Well it is harmful, it perpetuates the current situation which is not, even slightly, acceptable. Physically harmful no, but going along with it is condoning it, and that way it will never be changed.

Now is it "your" duty to fight da powah? Who knows, but someone has to...

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

Perhaps it's allowed them to see how harmful it actually isn't?

I completely agree that being practical about the needs of your family is reasonable and I would be much the same. But you have to admit, if every non-religious person with children had, instead of getting their child fake baptised, kicked up a media shit storm, sent angry letters to TDs, sued schools and generally made a big angry fuss about this obvious discrimination, that we would not being dealing with this current situation.

Of course it's easier and safer if you obediently bring your family to sit at the back of the bus. Luckily for society they are people braver than you and I in the world.

Goduznt Xzst

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So somehow these drops of water on their head have afflicted their mental faculties, preventing them from seeing the errors of the ways.

:rolleyes: It's not physically harmful to the child, don't be absurd (although I think that was your point)

Menas post covers my opinion on why it is harmful.

Zillah wrote: »

I find Goduxnt Xzst's attitude a little bit strange. Is lying to a corrupt school really that big a deal for you?

Yes because then the individual becomes as bad as them. I think, external to an education, the example I, as a person, will set for my child is of greater importance. Under no circumstances would I wish my child to bend to discriminatory rules.

Regardless of what I think of the opinions of the individual, when you lie, you damage yourself, not the person you're lying to.

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Regardless of what I think of the opinions of the individual, when you lie, you damage yourself, not the person you're lying to.

To borrow a phrase from the Bourne Supremacy, you talk about this stuff like you read it in a book.

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I really, and I mean really, am going to try and not say things like that when I am a parent, things like "you can't know" or "you're in no position"... etc. It is so trite and clichéd. Having a child does not make you privy to some advanced manual on life.

No, it certainly doesn't. It does, however, give you a pretty good understanding of the compromises that have to be made and the vast, vast commitments of time and energy that children need.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

As a parent would you not have plenty of time to move or make plans to ensure your child will equally get an education as well as not having to compromise the example you are setting for them?

FYI, I've lost a sizable six-figure sum on the value of my current home since it went onto the market last year (hasn't sold, btw). The move is not necessary for me, but is fairly necessary for my kid, partly for school, but for other reasons too. So your implication that moving is something that one can do at the drop of a hat to convenience one's conscience seems a trifle distant from reality.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The issue here isn't that your hands are tied or you had no time so you HAVE to get your child baptized, the issue is that you never viewed it as a problem. What's a few lies and deceit to a clergy man and people who will be teaching my child, eh? It's an insult to them (regardless of my views on religion) and an insult to an example you are supposed to be setting your child.

As I said above, if the religious didn't have a stranglehold over primary education in this country, then lying wouldn't be necessary. As it is, I haven't baptized my kid, but if it's necessary to do it to secure her education, then I'll be quite happy to lie to a priest in order to do so -- her needs are more important than mine at this stage in her life. In particular, her physical and intellectual needs are far more important than my political opinions. If I didn't think so, then I'd be engaging in the kind of nasty, destructive, public, political bullshit that a well-known poster wrote about in reference to a chinese friend of his in the Other Forum a few weeks back.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

For people in long long ago like old man robin it could only have been worse.

Fact of the week -- Bishop Eamon Casey was the lad who gave me my first communion. Still remember it quite well. Think he was shacked up with Ms Murphy at the time, or in the recent past.

I like to think that he made me the catholic I am today

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

As it is, I haven't baptized my kid, but if it's necessary to do it to secure her education, then I'll be quite happy to lie to a priest in order to do so -- her needs are more important than mine at this stage in her life.

I'm actually not arguing this. I'm arguing that baptism is not necessary to secure her education. If your child was starving, I agree, you should steal a loaf of bread to feed her, I don't agree that you should steal a loaf of bread when you have the means to walk 30 minutes further and buy it for yourself.

Again the issue here isn't whether it's necessary, lets agree on that. The issue is that you view it as a minor inconvenience that you feel will secure your child's place in a better school. My problem with this is that the act is minor but the impact is not. You are condoning by your acquiescence discrimination that you are stringently against so that the parents after you and also possibly your child in the future will also have to suffer it.

Zillah wrote: »

To borrow a phrase from the Bourne Supremacy, you talk about this stuff like you read it in a book.

I'll take that as a compliment, I guess, as it's a GX original, feel free to use it in your sig (unlikely though due to your previous ironic use of a quote saying people who use quotes lack wit ) Also, I guess, nothing ever said now is truly original, so I fully expect the sentiments I espoused to be mirrored by someone else before me.

sdanseo

More non-denominational schools yes; but lose this bloody educate together branding. It sounds plain stupid and is fundamentally flawed, if you're not going to discriminate then why say you're putting different groups of people "together"? Surely under the ideal, there are no seperate groups to begin with?

This bull**** has been going on long enough. I have no problem with Catholic patronage of schools, purely because of the sense of community it contributes especially in rural areas.

What I would suggest is:

That the Church passes schools, where the vast majority want other children to be included (decided through a fair AGM or some such), to the state (maybe in lieu of the abuse payments; where the church owns the school). The schools can then be run by the Dept. and priests are freed up from running the school and can pay more attention to saying mass. Given the apparent shortage, it seems win-win.

Zillah

There's a difference between not battling an injustice for reasons of practicality and condoning that injustice. It would be very impractical for you and I to immediately depart to set up an anti-rape patrol in Johannesburg, it doesn't mean we in any way condone rape, we've just got other stuff that needs our time and energy.

I had forgotten about that Oscar Wilde sig. The current one is oddly appropriate to this thread actually.

Goduznt Xzst

sdonn wrote: »

It sounds plain stupid and is fundamentally flawed, if you're not going to discriminate then why say you're putting different groups of people "together"? Surely under the ideal, there are no seperate groups to begin with?

I don't think they are looking for homogeneity. Races, cultures, sexes and individual opinions ARE different. It's about knowing these difference and accepting them, together. I'd be more worried if they didn't accept the differences between people and groups.

Zillah wrote: »

There's a difference between not battling an injustice for reasons of practicality and condoning that injustice. It would be very impractical for you and I to immediately depart to set up an anti-rape patrol in Johannesburg, it doesn't mean we in any way condone rape, we've just got other stuff that needs our time and energy.

Yes but lets not split hairs here, by baptizing your child you are actively supporting this practice. It isn't an inaction out of circumstance.

There are plenty of things I assume a lot of people here wouldn't support, even if it meant their child would receive less of an education, I'm curious as to why discrimination of non-Catholics isn't one of them.

Galvasean

irishgandalf wrote: »

As for the lack of educate together secondary schools, myself and one of the mods on this site went to a community school that had (i've not been to the recently redeveloped building) crosses on the walls and a jesus statue displayed and that was the only reference to any paticular religion.

That and the Chaplain's office. Not to mention those horribly conservative religious text books taht were lrft over from the 80s.

The religous classes were quite infromative and we had guest speakers from an ex jahova's witness and harry chrisnas.

That was the best class ever. Although it depended on what year you were in/what teacher you had. in fifth year I had that Creationist teacher... YOU KNOW the one Im talking about.... :P

Malari

Galvasean wrote: »

That and the Chaplain's office. Not to mention those horribly conservative religious text books taht were lrft over from the 80s.



That was the best class ever. Although it depended on what year you were in/what teacher you had. in fifth year I had that Creationist teacher... YOU KNOW the one Im talking about.... :P

I always wanted that creationist teacher! Would have made religious studies very entertaining. It was mostly just a place to do do homework, and if you tried to get a rise out of the extremely liberal teacher she just nodded and said "you're entitled to that opinion". BORING!

irishgandalf

Galvasean wrote: »

That and the Chaplain's office. Not to mention those horribly conservative religious text books taht were lrft over from the 80s.

Well the chaplain was had a very bubbly personality and was pretty easy going.

Galvasean wrote: »

That was the best class ever. Although it depended on what year you were in/what teacher you had. in fifth year I had that Creationist teacher... YOU KNOW the one Im talking about.... :P

Yeah that ex jahova pretty good and the harry chrisnas were halarious! my teacher (Mr Finn) described them as "people with bird droppings on their forehead and curtains around their waist". I don't think i know which teacher you are refering to but i would've had fun arguing with them.