parents..

~me~

sorry if its been asked before, couldnt find it.
after recently doing alot of proper research into the catholic church and its religion ive decided that it wasnt for me (to put it lightly).
anyway, my mum is a catholic, not very strict but she goes to church every sunday with my dad. and they- i wont say force- but they bring my sister (16) as well. since turning 18 ive stopped going. it was never an issue, it was just expected that we go to church and we didnt question it so when i turned 18 i just stopped.
anyway im rambling!
my mum hasnt brought it up with me but i think she thinks im just not interested in going rather than not practicing the religion.
i dunno if i should say something? ive a daughter who still isnt christened and although my mum has said she doesnt expect me to baptise her i think she does. i just want some opinions on whether i should bring up the issue or leave it be, as its not really a problem as such.
thanks! sorry for the long and rambling post!

Corkfeen

Personally I wouldn't bring it up unless she does.

liah

That's a tricky situation to be in. I wouldn't bother bringing it up with her, to be honest. Not unless she directly asks you why you haven't got your child baptised. If she does, just explain to her it's not your thing anymore and you want to let your child choose if she wants to belong to the church when she's old enough.

Other than that, telling her (especially if she's the type who goes to church every sunday) would just start a fight or, potentially worse, make her quietly "disappointed" with you.. not that she has any right to be, but sometimes people are just like that, especially when it comes to religion.

~me~

yeh thats what i was thinking.
i mean i doubt she'd take it too much to heart but i think she'd think im just being stupid rather than actually deciding on my own.
thanks for your opinions!

Dades

Corkfeen wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't bring it up unless she does.

I'd agree with this, tbh.

When the time comes, explain yourself of course. Honesty is the best policy.
I'm 35 and I don't talk about it with my mother!

I wouldn't bring it up unless it comes up.

Baptising the child however... how big are the waiting lists for the schools in your area / are there any educate together schools nearby?

I hate to say it but a baptism cert could be a useful thing to have.

liah

Deleted User wrote: »

I hate to say it but a baptism cert could be a useful thing to have.

Excuse my ignorance and taking this off-topic, but I'm not from Ireland and Canada doesn't have dominantly religious education since we're secular, what on earth is a baptism cert and why would it be useful in terms of education?

~me~

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't bring it up unless it comes up.

Baptising the child however... how big are the waiting lists for the schools in your area / are there any educate together schools nearby?

I hate to say it but a baptism cert could be a useful thing to have.

thats what im afraid of but my partner tells me they're not allowed refuse on grounds of religion now. as long as we're from the area we shouldnt have a problem. im hoping to put her in an educate together school though, if she gets a place!:o

Dades

~me~ wrote: »

thats what im afraid of but my partner tells me they're not allowed refuse on grounds of religion now. as long as we're from the area we shouldnt have a problem. im hoping to put her in an educate together school though, if she gets a place!:o

Your partners wrong I'm afraid!

Liah, we have legislation here that specifically permits school boards to discriminate on ground of religion. i.e. They can seek a baptismal cert (a cert to say your child had been baptised into the RC church) and refuse to enrole your child in the school for another child that has one.

liah

Dades wrote: »

Liah, we have legislation here that specifically permits school boards to discriminate on ground of religion. i.e. They can seek a baptismal cert (a cert to say your child had been baptised into the RC church) and refuse to enrole your child in the school for another child that has one.

:eek:

That is fúcking shocking.
I'm forever thankful that I was educated in secular countries that partook in freedom of religion/belief/lack thereof. That would completely wreck my head!

~me~

they can actually do that in this day and age???! :eek:
but surely the people that were in my class that didnt make their communion didnt need one?
i know my oh's dad keeps urging us to get one purely for that sake but i thought its 2009!:rolleyes:

Húrin

Sad but true. I think you should stick to your guns though rather than put your child through a sham baptism.

CDfm

I hate to say it but thats the way it is.

Going to mass is a personal thing and your religious beliefs are your own.

Nowadays, baptism is looked on as a welcome into the catholic community thing and Ive heard priests say this and Im catholic.

If there is no pressure on you why not see the way things are in your area before you make a decision.

20goto10

Húrin wrote: »

Sad but true. I think you should stick to your guns though rather than put your child through a sham baptism.

I don't agree. I have my first child on the way and I was also shocked to recently find out that they are allowed to discriminate on grounds of religion. I live directly across the street from a catholic primary school and it was a factor I considered when moving there (even though kids were a long way off at that time ). It sickens me the way the catholic church still has control over us even in this day and age. But I will get my child baptised if I have to.

At the end of the day it really doesn't mean anything. The whole religion is a farce to me and having to go through 1 hour of a farce ceremony to ensure my child gets into the school across the road really isn't that much of a big deal. I was baptised and confirmed. Officially I'm a catholic...it means absolutely nothing other than a statistic. Do you really want to put yourself at a disadvantage over it?

btw, does anybody know if you need to be confirmed to get into secondary school?

Rev Hellfire

The baptism is only an issue if the school you'd like your child to enrol in is heavily subscribed and affliated with a religion. Then its a matter of deciding how adamant you are about ensuring your child has the maximum chance of obtaining a place.

Going by whats been posted here, most people with children have taken a hit for the team and got the nippers head wet, while those without kids seem to insist you should put your principles first.

Its a less than ideal system, which is slowly changing. But you've got to be pragmatic and if a wet forehead will give your child an advantage of another its a no brainer imho.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Going by whats been posted here, most people with children have taken a hit for the team and got the nippers head wet, while those without kids seem to insist you should put your principles first.

QFT!

Though you'd have to think the Ryan Report (and reports to follow) will put a dent in future baptismal numbers.

DapperGent

liah wrote: »

:eek:

That is fúcking shocking.
I'm forever thankful that I was educated in secular countries that partook in freedom of religion/belief/lack thereof. That would completely wreck my head!

I wouldn't see much wrong with it if catholic schools comprised 5% of the total. The fact that they comprise 99% is the real fúcking problem.

Sam Vimes

DapperGent wrote: »

I wouldn't see much wrong with it if catholic schools comprised 5% of the total. The fact that they comprise 99% is the real fúcking problem.

That is the major problem. I'd add though that I wouldn't mind only if they were private schools run and financed by the church. Separation of church and state is very important so a institution where the staff and running costs are paid by the state and where the curriculum is set by the state should not be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds, regardless of who sits on the board of management

~me~

some may think that having a child baptised for the sake of their education is a small sacrifice which to an extent it is, but at the same time, surely if i enrole my non baptised child and get refused by all local schools id be able to go to someone higher and dispute it on the grounds of childrens right to education???

Sam Vimes

~me~ wrote: »

some may think that having a child baptised for the sake of their education is a small sacrifice which to an extent it is, but at the same time, surely if i enrole my non baptised child and get refused by all local schools id be able to go to someone higher and dispute it on the grounds of childrens right to education???

No, Ireland's like Mississippi in the 50's you see, we haven't discovered civil rights yet and they're legally entitled to discriminate on religious grounds. In a county with 99% religious schools, you are a second class citizen as a non-believer. To the back of the bus with you! :pac:

Rev Hellfire

~me~ wrote: »

some may think that having a child baptised for the sake of their education is a small sacrifice which to an extent it is, but at the same time, surely if i enrole my non baptised child and get refused by all local schools id be able to go to someone higher and dispute it on the grounds of childrens right to education???

Though the school can equally charge that the other children ahead of your child also have an equal right to their education and with limited number of seats...

The fact is there will be a school available, just not the one you want and possibly not one as convenient or with as good a reputation.

Its important to note that no school refuses to allow a non-baptised child attend, its just their entry is weighted lower than those who are.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Though the school can equally charge that the other children ahead of your child also have an equal right to their education and with limited number of seats...

The fact is there will be a school available, just not the one you want and possibly not one as convenient or with as good a reputation.

Its important to note that no school refuses to allow a non-baptised child attend, its just their entry is weighted lower than those who are.

I don't think they can argue that. If they were randomly picking a child they could argue it but they're using religious criteria to pick, they are saying that this child's right is more important because he's a catholic

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think they can argue that. If they were randomly picking a child they could argue it but they're using religious criteria to pick, they are saying that this child's right is more important because he's a catholic

They can and they do. Though if no other schools in the area are available they will take the child in.

Regardless of the ifs and buts the end result is your child is guaranteed an education, but its not guaranteed it will be convenient nor the school you desire.

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

They can and they do. Though if no other schools in the area are available they will take the child in.

Regardless of the ifs and buts the end result is your child is guaranteed an education, but its not guaranteed it will be convenient nor the school you desire.

Sorry, when I said they can't argue it, I meant that they'd be completely wrong to argue it. You can't honestly argue that it's a case of equal rights if you're placing more importance on one person's rights. Unfortunately this means that the children of non-believers have to go to a different school than their friends because the state allows the school to consider their friends more important

toiletduck

I've found it's best not to bring this up with family, unless of course they bring it up first... As for the baptism thing, there's a lot of threads on that about. I dunno.

~me~

the problem is the reason we dont want her baptised is that we were both baptised into a religion we now dont believe in and we want to allow her to make the decision seriously in her own time rather than deciding against it when shes older and resenting us and the religion itself for baptising her for the sake of it/ for education. cause tbh indoctrination is a big factor in peoples reason for disliking religion as a whole, whether its right or not.

Mena

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Going by whats been posted here, most people with children have taken a hit for the team and got the nippers head wet, while those without kids seem to insist you should put your principles first.

Just to buck the trend here, I've a seven year old daughter who has not been and never will be (unless she decides it for herself) baptised.

Never had an issue with schools, though she'd be put in a religiously affiliated school over my dead body.

20goto10

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry, when I said they can't argue it, I meant that they'd be completely wrong to argue it. You can't honestly argue that it's a case of equal rights if you're placing more importance on one person's rights. Unfortunately this means that the children of non-believers have to go to a different school than their friends because the state allows the school to consider their friends more important

I agree. But as for taking them to court what argument do you have? There is an alternative for me, its just 10km away and realistically will involve moving home. How do you put that argument forward in court? The first thing they're going to say is you should have thought about that when you were buying a home and bought somewhere closer to a non religious school. Its an argument of convenience, which as far as I'm aware the court has no concern over.

Besides, would you really want to go to court (and you're probably talking about a European court) when the problem can be solved by spending 1 hour in a church letting a priest wet your baby's head?

Sam Vimes

20goto10 wrote: »

I agree. But as for taking them to court what argument do you have? There is an alternative for me, its just 10km away and realistically will involve moving home. How do you put that argument forward in court? The first thing they're going to say is you should have thought about that when you were buying a home and bought somewhere closer to a non religious school. Its an argument of convenience, which as far as I'm aware the court has no concern over.

The argument you have is that the law violates the equality act because you are being discriminated against in a state run institution. You'd effectively have to change the law which is probably not going to happen.

A court shouldn't argue that you should take into account that this country discriminates against you because of your lack of religious beliefs, they should remove that discrimination but they most likely won't

20goto10 wrote: »

Besides, would you really want to go to court (and you're probably talking about a European court) when the problem can be solved by spending 1 hour in a church letting a priest wet your baby's head?

No I wouldn't, I'd get the baptism done. I'm no Rosa Parks and I wouldn't force my child to be either

~me~

20goto10 wrote: »

Besides, would you really want to go to court (and you're probably talking about a European court) when the problem can be solved by spending 1 hour in a church letting a priest wet your baby's head?

its not about being in a church or wetting a babys head its about allowing her to choose her religion which is a big thing for her.

Dades

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry, when I said they can't argue it, I meant that they'd be completely wrong to argue it. You can't honestly argue that it's a case of equal rights if you're placing more importance on one person's rights. Unfortunately this means that the children of non-believers have to go to a different school than their friends because the state allows the school to consider their friends more important

If a school board gets to the stage where it's choosing between baptised kids and 'other' kids - it's not about the kids' rights, it's about the school's right to maintain it's "ethos". So in effect the board is allowed act in the manner it feels is best for the school.

Same result from a different direction, though.