Reasons for renouncing/non renouncing my faith

mehfesto2

I'm a long time lurker in these parts, particularly in the Creationism/Evolution thread - and while I enjoy reading and debating with myself what's been said, in reality, very little of it comes into play in my everyday life.

However - and I apologise already, because Im sure it's said here thousands of times on this board - I have recently decided that there is no need for myself to declare as a Christian. I do not attend religious ceremonies, I do not believe in the majority ofthe Church's teachings and I'm very much against the Vatican's beliefs in particular.

However, if I was to take the step of renouncing my faith I am aware by counting myself out, I would be making religion more a part of my life than ever before. My family - when I come to have one - would be unable to enrole in 90% of the schools in the country. My partner is a church-going Catholic and respects my decision, however I feel that my choice alone could overshadow her beliefs.

Essentially, Im asking whether based this issues alone, should I continue to declare as Christian?

I would be hypocritical to stay as part of the church, have my children baptized etc. - when I dont believe in it, just for the sake of the easy option. But the state still allows most its schools to be christian only as far as I can make out - it's unfair, but it's the way it is.

What should I do?

Thanks in advance.

me_right_one

I'm not being smart, but wouldnt the easy option be to fully embrace Christianity? Whatever you dont believe, question it, research it, find out what you can. Pray a bit, see how it feels. Go to a few masses, even if its only at Christmas and Easter, and spice it up by going to different catholic churches and churches of different denominations. I'm not trying to convert you or anything, but from a practical point of view, it might be the best all round!

PDN

mehfesto2 wrote: »

However, if I was to take the step of renouncing my faith I am aware by counting myself out, I would be making religion more a part of my life than ever before. My family - when I come to have one - would be unable to enrole in 90% of the schools in the country. My partner is a church-going Catholic and respects my decision, however I feel that my choice alone could overshadow her beliefs.

Are you saying that 90% of schools contain no non-Catholics?

ALincoln

No, he's saying that 90% of schools are focused on teaching Catholicism.

mehfesto2

Yes, should've made that clearer.

I don't think the embracing it thing would work, Im pretty certain of where I stand there, but I dont want this decision to make my life difficult when I can avoid it by basically staying quiet. But at the same time, I'd rather not be counted as Christian.

I dont mean this as an attack on your beliefs, or as some sort of moral one-up manship, but just to seek guidance from people potentiallty in my situation or who can at least understand my situation better than most.

PDN

ALincoln wrote: »

No, he's saying that 90% of schools are focused on teaching Catholicism.

Ah, my bad. I thought that when he said his children would be unable to enroll that he was talking about the school refusing his children, rather than him not allowing his children to go to a school that teaches Catholicism.

Tim Robbins

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Yes, should've made that clearer.

I don't think the embracing it thing would work, Im pretty certain of where I stand there, but I dont want this decision to make my life difficult when I can avoid it by basically staying quiet. But at the same time, I'd rather not be counted as Christian.

I dont mean this as an attack on your beliefs, or as some sort of moral one-up manship, but just to seek guidance from people potentiallty in my situation or who can at least understand my situation better than most.

The schools thing really depends on where you live. Educate Together schools are popping up everywhere and you'll have no religious issues there.
You can even set up your own.

Also, several Catholic and Protestant schools are a far more accomodating then the old style Christian Brothers were.

As for having mixed views from your partner. I don't think this much of an issue. It's one way of increasing the chances of your kids thinking for themselves as they are more likely of getting a broader representation of views from a couple that differ in opinion than a couple who agree exactly with each other which inevitably puts more pressure on the child to just agree with the view the parents share.

While you'll get plenty of interesting discussions here, you tend to get people who are more extreme in their views than you do in the real world.

Phototoxin

No, he's saying that 90% of schools are focused on teaching Catholicism.

ROFLAMO

no

just no.

Most schools are actually secular. Sure RE has a 'chistian' ethos but unless you go to a hardcore school its quite normal. I never found out that my secondary school was a 'catholic' school until I was in my last few months of 6th year! You might need to research. Also you don't need to make a formal renunciation unless you want to. Besides even if you do then your partner (and if you're worrying about religion shouldn't it be wife/husband ) is catholic then you will be OK.

kelly1

mehfesto2 wrote: »

.........I have recently decided that there is no need for myself to declare as a Christian.

I'm very sorry to hear that Mehfesto. May I ask if you believe in God in any shape or form? Are you an atheist? Sorry, I haven't come across many of your posts to know.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ah, my bad. I thought that when he said his children would be unable to enroll that he was talking about the school refusing his children, rather than him not allowing his children to go to a school that teaches Catholicism.

I think what he is saying is that he won't be able to enroll his non-Catholic children in a state funded Catholic school, which isn't actually true. He will simply not have priority on the waiting list, but he should be able to get his non-Catholic kids in some where.

equivariant

On the issue of schools, there seems to be a lot os misinformation and scareemongering out there. I am not a religious person so have no particular reason to defend the practises of religious orders on this matter.

However, the primary school whose catchemnt area you live in are legally obliged to take your children regardless of religion or lack thereof. They cannot refuse you. It is possible that problems could arise should ypu wish to attend another school. However I have never heard of a case where a child has been refused on religious grounds. I have heard of many rumours of such discrimination (usually propagated by the parents in case, which in my view makes the rumour unreliable)

I think that there is very little prospect of any child of the OP's being denied the school that they want based on religious grounds.

robindch

equivariant wrote: »

On the issue of schools, there seems to be a lot os misinformation and scareemongering out there. [....] the primary school whose catchemnt area you live in are legally obliged to take your children regardless of religion or lack thereof. They cannot refuse you.

Yes, they can refuse you.

Section 7(3.c) of The Equal Status Act of 2000 explicitly permits schools to reject applications on behalf of any child where "the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school". In practice, this is taken to mean that the child of parents who are non-catholic can legitimately be told to take a hike by a school board controlled by catholics.

The Equal Status Act is available from here, and the discriminatory text is on page 13.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Yes, they can refuse you.

Section 7(3.c) of The Equal Status Act of 2000 explicitly permits schools to reject applications on behalf of any child where "the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school". In practice, this is taken to mean that the child of parents who are non-catholic can legitimately be told to take a hike by a school board controlled by catholics.

The Equal Status Act is available from here, and the discriminatory text is on page 13.

The thing is, they don't refuse. Also, of te many non-catholics I know who went to various Catholic schools, the schools have always been co-operative in their non-participation of religious stuff.

I 'do' think, due to the nature of our School system, it should be clearer defined about not being able to discriminate, in case such a thing comes up in the future. However, it is merely a rhetorical scenario now. Anyone who says, 'You know you can be refused entry to a catholic school if you're not baptised', is engaging in disingenuous scaremongering IMO. They are of course, 'technically' correct, but again, the reality is far removed from it, and if such things were to happen, the Dpt of education would no doubt throw their weight around.

Anyway, the religious school want the pure brains of the children of all faiths and none (NOM, NOM):)

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

The thing is, they don't refuse. Also, of te many non-catholics I know who went to various Catholic schools, the schools have always been co-operative in their non-participation of religious stuff.

+1, I went to a Dominican "run" school, which had students of all faiths and none. There was never a problem.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

The thing is, they don't refuse. Also, of te many non-catholics I know who went to various Catholic schools, the schools have always been co-operative in their non-participation of religious stuff.

They don't actually have any choice - not if they want to get funding from the State.

Article 44:4 of the Constitution states:

Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

JimiTime

^^ Cheers PDN. Just shows what the rumour mill can do.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

^^ Cheers PDN. Just shows what the rumour mill can do.

Well, to be fair, the Constitution does not address the issue of whether a school can refuse a child admission based on the parents' religious affiliation or lack thereof. The article I cited refers specifically to the issue of the child attending religious activities and instruction.

However, Article 44:3 states

The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

A decent lawyer should be able to convince the courts that the State has an obligation to provide as good an education for the child of an atheist as for the child of a Catholic. Therefore to deny a child entrance to a State-funded school on the grounds of religious affiliation would be unconstitutional. And, AFAIK, the Constitution trumps any other acts or laws about 'ethos'.

Of course an atheist may feel uncomfortable arguing their case on constitutional grounds given that Article 44:1 reads:

The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

However, it's probably worth holding their noses on that one and ensuring their children receive their Constitutional rights, even if God is not always accorded His Constitutional rights.;)

Soul Winner

My kids never got baptized into the RCC. Never made their communion or confirmation and I and their mother never had a problem with any of their schools over the years. Legally they might or might not be able to refuse admission based on faith/non-faith but in reality (in our case at least) there's usually never a problem.

Anyway, back to the OP. Just live your convictions and let the chips fall where they may. Don't let the fear of what might or might not be, rule your actions. Step out and be counted for whatever it is you believe in even if its nothing at all.

ALincoln

PDN wrote: »

Well, to be fair, the Constitution does not address the issue of whether a school can refuse a child admission based on the parents' religious affiliation or lack thereof. The article I cited refers specifically to the issue of the child attending religious activities and instruction.

However, Article 44:3 states


A decent lawyer should be able to convince the courts that the State has an obligation to provide as good an education for the child of an atheist as for the child of a Catholic. Therefore to deny a child entrance to a State-funded school on the grounds of religious affiliation would be unconstitutional. And, AFAIK, the Constitution trumps any other acts or laws about 'ethos'.

Of course an atheist may feel uncomfortable arguing their case on constitutional grounds given that Article 44:1 reads:

However, it's probably worth holding their noses on that one and ensuring their children receive their Constitutional rights, even if God is not always accorded His Constitutional rights.;)

Firstly, God is not a legal entity, so he, she or it does not have legally enforceable Constitutional rights.

Secondly, the provision you quoted makes no reference to honouring and respecting God in the educational system. Ergo, the point is that God can be honoured and respected elsewhere while the state operates an optimally functioning educational system.