Kelly lies and mislead over schools

goose2005

Brendan Kelly, Catholic bishop of Achonry, lies about Catholic schools in the 1-2-2011 Irish Times.

For too long as Catholics we just took our schools for granted.

I think he means "we took power over our schools for granted."

The Catholic community was passionately engaged in the education of the young long before any state or government.

Not very clear what's meant here. Certainly education existed in Ireland prior to 1831, but was it all "Catholic"? In any case, the Stanley letter, an 1831 state initiative, provided for mass primary education in Ireland - in fact, it aimed to create mixed-faith schools, but religious leaders got in the way and made up monofaith schools.

That co-operation continues in a demographic situation becoming more diverse and pluralistic. In recent years, it was the church itself which accepted this changing demographic requires the possibility of divesting some schools where diversity of provision may be necessary.

Entirely a lie. The RCC never offered to divest control of schools, and plans to drag its feet over the next few decades over its control of children's minds.

We are followers of Jesus, the greatest teacher the world has ever known. He taught and transformed lives by His words, yes, but even more powerfully by the person He was and the fact His word was in perfect harmony with the life He lived.

To be "the greatest teacher the world has ever known" one should surely say something new, rather than just rehashing Buddhist and Jewish pacifist ideas. Aristotle or J.S. Mill were surely better teachers.

At the core of education is the announcement to the child, by what we do and say and by the ethos we create for the child’s growth, that he or she is loved and loveable, and his or her life is for service and selfless love in the world.

Catholic schools therefore wish to enable each pupil discover his or her God-given gift for the world. We want each child to come to know their unique and irreplaceable identity as child of God, made in His image, present in society to make a unique contribution.

Nurturing a real and living relationship with Jesus and the fundamental love-family that is the Blessed Trinity is central to this deeply human and hope-filled vision for each and every pupil, no matter what their ability or social station.

In an era characterised by cynicism and bad news, we need schools which are both deeply human and Christian communities. When children know they are loved, they are safe and they can learn. Ethos, therefore, is foundational from the Catholic perspective.

blah blah blah bull**** bull**** bull**** GIVE US POWER OVER SCHOOLS

Catholic parents cherish their right to establish schools of their choice in our democratic country.

Entirely ignoring the enormous number of Irish people who are non-religious - all over Ireland, there are atheist religious students attending Catholic religious colleges, so that they can get jobs in Catholic primary schools, where they can teach Catholic doctrine to the atheist children of atheist parents.

So, for the sake of parents and children, we joyfully celebrate our schools in this crossover moment between the darkness of winter and the renewal and light of spring, under the protection of St Brigid, Muire na nGael.

You are aware that St Brigid was basically a clumsy attempt to take over the goddess Brighid?

Ghost Buster

goose2005 wrote: »

Brendan Kelly, Catholic bishop of Achonry, lies about Catholic schools in the 1-2-2011 Irish Times.

I think he means "we took power over our schools for granted."

Not very clear what's meant here. Certainly education existed in Ireland prior to 1831, but was it all "Catholic"? In any case, the Stanley letter, an 1831 state initiative, provided for mass primary education in Ireland - in fact, it aimed to create mixed-faith schools, but religious leaders got in the way and made up monofaith schools.

Entirely a lie. The RCC never offered to divest control of schools, and plans to drag its feet over the next few decades over its control of children's minds.

To be "the greatest teacher the world has ever known" one should surely say something new, rather than just rehashing Buddhist and Jewish pacifist ideas. Aristotle or J.S. Mill were surely better teachers.

blah blah blah bull**** bull**** bull**** GIVE US POWER OVER SCHOOLS

Entirely ignoring the enormous number of Irish people who are non-religious - all over Ireland, there are atheist religious students attending Catholic religious colleges, so that they can get jobs in Catholic primary schools, where they can teach Catholic doctrine to the atheist children of atheist parents.

You are aware that St Brigid was basically a clumsy attempt to take over the goddess Brighid?

I know what Im ranting about to every canvasser who darkens my door. Thanks for posting that.

vinchick

I assume what he was talking about when he said that the RCC stepped for education, was the hedge school/Nano Nagle etc. histories. But they really need to stop using that as a reason for domination. Yes it was crap then but now the government pays for the schools so they can go away and retire now.

The Mad Hatter

goose2005 wrote: »

You are aware that St Brigid was basically a clumsy attempt to take over the goddess Brighid?

Off-topic, but do you have a source for that? I've heard it a few times before, but managed to embarrass myself in front of a couple of work colleagues when I couldn't show them where I'd gotten my info from...

vinchick

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Off-topic, but do you have a source for that? I've heard it a few times before, but managed to embarrass myself in front of a couple of work colleagues when I couldn't show them where I'd gotten my info from...

It's something for QI, methinks!

JimiTime

goose2005 wrote: »

The RCC never offered to divest control of schools, and plans to drag its feet over the next few decades over its control of children's minds.

A word of advice FWIW. Exagerrating the issue of religion in schools really doesn't aide your cause IMO. This type of terminology can be digested by someone like me (A non-catholic Christian who went to CBS's all his schooling life) as the ravings of idealogical religion hater. It reminds me of the anti-abortionists who use misleading pictures or out and out lies.

There is a very valid case for removing the the RCC from our state schools without needing to resort to hysterical language. Obviously if you are preaching to the converted, they probably don't care about such language. However, if you are looking to appeal to fence sitters or people who are not quite sure yet (e.g. Me) etc, its a concern.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

There is a very valid case for removing the the RCC from our state schools without needing to resort to hysterical language.

Well, some people feel strongly about this issue and I think it's useful to acknowledge this fact and try to appreciate the reasons for it, regardless of whatever one's own opinion might happen to be.

From your perspective, how would you feel if your kid was pushed to the back of the queue because you weren't a member of the religion that controlled the school across the road from you?

Try put yourself into our position and see if you feel it's fair.

JimiTime wrote: »

It reminds me of the anti-abortionists who use misleading pictures or out and out lies.

The current majority scientific view of religions is that they have but one purpose -- to control enough of the minds of enough hosts to ensure that they can propagate to other hosts. In this sense, vinchick is quite correct., though I can understand why you mght be shocked if you've never considered the matter from that perspective before.

If you're in any doubt about how religions work, do try have a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

Even if you disagree with the premise, you should find it intruiging.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Well, some people feel strongly about this issue and I think it's useful to acknowledge this fact and try to appreciate the reasons for it, regardless of whatever one's own opinion might happen to be.

Anti Abortionists feel strongly too, it does not excuse spurious behaviour though.

From your perspective, how would you feel if your kid was pushed to the back of the queue because you weren't a member of the religion that controlled the school across the road from you?

This is not the case though. Its a scare tactic that has no basis in reality. Its a 'what if' spectre. I sat out religion class, my whole family went through school with no hassle, as did everyone non-catholic I know (A lot of people). It was never an issue.

Try put yourself into our position and see if you feel it's fair.

I AM in your position, I'm not a Catholic, and I know no-one who even considered Catholicism based on school. (I know a hell of a lot of these people) The issue I think a lot of yourselves have is with the IDEA that the RC have their hands in our schools rather than any REAL threat etc.

mikhail

JimiTime wrote: »

I AM in your position, I'm not a Catholic, and I know no-one who even considered Catholicism based on school. (I know a hell of a lot of these people) The issue I think a lot of yourselves have is with the IDEA that the RC have their hands in our schools rather than any REAL threat etc.

We have a right not to have our kids go through that. And one of the posters here recently wrote about his neice being refused a place in her local school as she wasn't baptised. That's a REAL threat, one which drives many people in this country to baptise their kids for no reason other than access to schools.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

A word of advice FWIW. Exagerrating the issue of religion in schools really doesn't aide your cause IMO.

In what way is what goose2005 said an exaggeration?

JimiTime wrote: »

This type of terminology can be digested by someone like me (A non-catholic Christian who went to CBS's all his schooling life) as the ravings of idealogical religion hater.

If your contradiction of goose2005 is based purely on your anti atheist bias, then I see no reason why anyone should take heed of it.

JimiTime wrote: »

There is a very valid case for removing the the RCC from our state schools without needing to resort to hysterical language. Obviously if you are preaching to the converted, they probably don't care about such language. However, if you are looking to appeal to fence sitters or people who are not quite sure yet (e.g. Me) etc, its a concern.

I dont know about goose2005, but if I had to underplay the seriousness of an isue in order to not insult fence sitters mentality, then frankly, those fence sitters can stay firmly wedged on the fence.

JimiTime

mikhail wrote: »

We have a right not to have our kids go through that. And one of the posters here recently wrote about his neice being refused a place in her local school as she wasn't baptised. That's a REAL threat, one which drives many people in this country to baptise their kids for no reason other than access to schools.

Thats fair. It is indeed a real issue if that is happening. The only time I heard of this happening was with reagards to Balbriggan. There was a neglect of the school to child ratio, and a local school said that if it wasn't dealt with, that the Catholic only scenario could apply. This got blown up into something more than it was. The issue really was the states neglect of the children of Balbriggan, how it would be dealt with by the school if the state did not deal with it was secondary. Don't get me wrong, its still an issue, but there seemed to be more noise about the secondary issue. It showed that it was more idealism that got people shouting than concern for the children.

My objection here was mainly to this:

The RCC never offered to divest control of schools, and plans to drag its feet over the next few decades over its control of children's minds.

Its simply NOT an issue of control over kids minds, and such hysterical language belittle the cause.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what way is what goose2005 said an exaggeration?

They don't have 'control over kids minds'. That is hysterical language that undermines the cause.

If your contradiction of goose2005 is based purely on your anti atheist bias, then I see no reason why anyone should take heed of it.

I am certainly anti-atheism, but I am pro honesty. I believe there is a real case to be made for removing the RCC from schools, but exaggeration and hysterics are not the way to go.

I dont know about goose2005, but if I had to underplay the seriousness of an isue in order to not insult fence sitters mentality, then frankly, those fence sitters can stay firmly wedged on the fence.

This exhibits more dishonesty unfortunately. You replaced my objection to exaggeration, with me saying the issue should be 'underplayed' and that I am 'insulted'. As a non catholic, there is NOTHING insulting about someone objecting to them, whatever language they use. I also NEVER encouraged 'underplaying' the issue.
I say be honest, and deal with the reality.

Pushtrak

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Off-topic, but do you have a source for that? I've heard it a few times before, but managed to embarrass myself in front of a couple of work colleagues when I couldn't show them where I'd gotten my info from...

I wasn't sure what day was for St Bridget. February 1st, says Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bridget

This is the same day as Imbolc. http://www.chalicecentre.net/imbolc.htm

So, basically it is the same as other days. "What? That isn't a Pagan day, its a Christian day" nonsense that applies to other days, too.

Edit: Wanted to use a non wiki link too.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

They don't have 'control over kids minds'. That is hysterical language that undermines the cause.

Not for lack of trying. They have control of their eduction, which amounts to the smae thing (in the absence of mind control technology)

JimiTime wrote: »

I am certainly anti-atheism, but I am pro honesty. I believe there is a real case to be made for removing the RCC from schools, but exaggeration and hysterics are not the way to go.

Ha, tell me the truth now Jimi, did your nose just spear straight through your computer screen when you typed that?

JimiTime wrote: »

This exhibits more dishonesty unfortunately. You replaced my objection to exaggeration, with me saying the issue should be 'underplayed' and that I am 'insulted'. As a non catholic, there is NOTHING insulting about someone objecting to them, whatever language they use. I also NEVER encouraged 'underplaying' the issue.
I say be honest, and deal with the reality.

Wow, if not before, your screen has a hose shaped hole in it now :rolleyes:.
Outside of mind control technology, the closest you can get to actual mind control is direction of a childs eduction. You tell them what to believe, in a situation where the conradciction of you is fairly discouraged.
The truth is, in controlling the schools, the church do have a grip on kids minds. You might claim this is not the case, but to describe it as otherwise, would be underplaying the truth, something I would never suggest, least of all to avoid insulting you anti atheist mentality.
Enjoying the fence wedged up there?

Dades

Mark Hamill, try not to make this so personal.

JimiTime

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not for lack of trying. They have control of their eduction, which amounts to the smae thing (in the absence of mind control technology)


Ha, tell me the truth now Jimi, did your nose just spear straight through your computer screen when you typed that?



Wow, if not before, your screen has a hose shaped hole in it now :rolleyes:.
Outside of mind control technology, the closest you can get to actual mind control is direction of a childs eduction. You tell them what to believe, in a situation where the conradciction of you is fairly discouraged.
The truth is, in controlling the schools, the church do have a grip on kids minds. You might claim this is not the case, but to describe it as otherwise, would be underplaying the truth, something I would never suggest, least of all to avoid insulting you anti atheist mentality.
Enjoying the fence wedged up there?

Well, i did say for 'FWIW'. Its obviously not worth much to yourself, and people are free to ignore my advice. I can only speak from experience, and my experience would say that you are wrong with he hysterics. As for ironic accusations of ME being dishonest, water off a ducks back tbh.

Mark Hamill

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, i did say for 'FWIW'. Its obviously not worth much to yourself, and people are free to ignore my advice. I can only speak from experience, and my experience would say that you are wrong with he hysterics.

Can you describe a situation that could be considered as having (or trying to have) control of childrens minds?