Should the Catholic Church be removed from schools?

angeleyes

I know that this is an ambition of the current Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn.

My DD attends the primary school that I myself attended. Good school and all that but I feel it is my responsibility to educate my child in religious education and not the teaching staff. I will and do teach my DD her prayers and bring her to Mass (if she wants to go).

Another bug bear of mine is that the Board of Management of my local primary school is under the control and patronage of the said same Catholic Church. The local priest is Chairman of the BOM and is a mini dictator - its his way or nothing. Also when the school was officially opened recently it was done by the Bishop of the diocese who not only covered up clerical abuse also it is alleged has a problem with alcohol which to me does not have the merits of someone who should be patron of a school. Ok that is just a once of case in point.

My question is - should schools be taken out of the hands of the Church. Should a priest have the deciding vote on a member of staff as to whether or not they practice the Catholic ethos? Does it really matter and do we as parents really want priests access to our children?

Sonics2k

From State funded schools, yes.

From actual Catholic schools, no.

edit:
To clarify, if a parent wishes there child to be educated in a school run by a certain religious order, that's fine and is their right.
However, it would be best to remove any power or influence (of any religion) in state run schools, as they are often filled with children of numerous backgrounds.

Manach

My understanding is that under the constitution, Art 44?, that derivied from this no child is forced to attend religious education in a State funded school. So the converse of this, removing the right of a child to attend religious classes in such an environment should hold. Ireland's constitution has been noted as giving more choice to parents in regard to education than other countries. Having the Minister of Education remove such, and seek to impose more government control would to me seem a retrograde step.

Cato Maior

By co-incidence, 'We the Citizens' released their final report today that includes a poll of over 1,200 people within the state that was conducted by Ipsos MRBI. It included questions concerning the education system in Ireland. It found that;

- Over 40% of people strongly agreed, and over 65% of people either strongly agreed or agreed, that religious education should be focused on teaching students about different religions rather than promoting one set of religious beliefs.

- Over 60% of people strongly agreed, and over 75% of people either strongly agreed or agreed, that church and state should be totally separate.

- That when asked would they prefer if most primary and secondary schools were to become multi- denominational, i.e. taken out of church control, 46% said that they would welcome this and that this level was consistent with all ages and groups, and that only 36% said that they would not welcome it. Even in Connaught/Ulster where the 'welcome' figure was smallest, it was still greater than the other figure.

This would seem to indicate strong support for fairly radical reform of our education system.

Simtech

angeleyes wrote: »

My question is - should schools be taken out of the hands of the Church. Should a priest have the deciding vote on a member of staff as to whether or not they practice the Catholic ethos? Does it really matter and do we as parents really want priests access to our children?

Yes, they should, without doubt.
Perhaps he should, the question is, should they be required to practice the catholic ethos at all, I don't believe so.
It does matter, what children learn at a young age affects them for the rest of their lives.
No, I personally don't want priests having any access to my children.

gawker

I think religious indoctrination should be taken out of public schools, whilst the rights of schools which are set up by a religious institute to teach their faith should be safeguarded. That way, if a parent wants to send their kids to a school that teaches them a specific religious belief then they can do so.

I say "indoctrination" in the truest sense of the word BTW, not to wind anybody up. I can still remember my religion teacher trying in vain to explain the trinity to us and saying it was true. That was less than 10 years ago. It is not the governments job to pay some guy to tell kids the trinity is real - if parents really want their kids to believe that they can teach their kids themselves...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

angeleyes wrote: »

I know that this is an ambition of the current Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn.

My DD attends the primary school that I myself attended. Good school and all that but I feel it is my responsibility to educate my child in religious education and not the teaching staff. I will and do teach my DD her prayers and bring her to Mass (if she wants to go).

Another bug bear of mine is that the Board of Management of my local primary school is under the control and patronage of the said same Catholic Church. The local priest is Chairman of the BOM and is a mini dictator - its his way or nothing. Also when the school was officially opened recently it was done by the Bishop of the diocese who not only covered up clerical abuse also it is alleged has a problem with alcohol which to me does not have the merits of someone who should be patron of a school. Ok that is just a once of case in point.

My question is - should schools be taken out of the hands of the Church. Should a priest have the deciding vote on a member of staff as to whether or not they practice the Catholic ethos? Does it really matter and do we as parents really want priests access to our children?

Do you mean religion as in different faiths? No. Just as relevant as History or Geography.

If you mean Catholicism, then yes. The churches will do a better job of education their own faith.

as far the non-compulsory argument, what for the kids who don't do religion? Free time? Why not just commit the extra time to classes all the kids can attend?

prinz

Should the Catholic Church 'be removed' from schools..... not quite sure what that would amount to or mean in practice.

Should the Catholic Church 'remove itself' from schools, yes, from the vast majority of them anyway. Particularly primary level...

(a) It's beyond ridiculous to have a teacher who mightn't have the slightest bit of interest in or respect for the faith expected to teach it and
foster an interest in it. We see the fruits of that already.

(b) The diverse nature of the population these days really favours a state education system.

(c) They haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in the past.

(d) The stupidity of segregation which has baffled me since I was first going to primary school, having to walk past the local Church of Ireland school to get to the Catholic National School, and then the two schools cooperating on almost everything anyway.

On a side note, the education system is changing already and has been for years, a fact that I don't think a lot of people appreciate or give credit for. When I was in secondary school I went to a school which came under the umbrella of the Dominican order. We had religion classes (one class a week up to Junior Cert - nothing after that). World religions, background, history, culture, important dates/festivals etc and even got round to agnosticism and atheism. Although it was a 'Catholic' school, Roman Catholicism was given no more preference via teaching than anything else, and the student population was made up of a range of faiths and nobody ever had an issue in my five years there.

So I'd have to say, no there was no brainwashing or indoctrination going on, and I'd hate to have the Dominican Order forced out of that school against their will because a few of the brothers were still teaching other subjects (not religion) and were excellent teachers and the place was steeped in the culture of the order.

As another example my nephew is attending a National School in the midlands these days and is preparing for FHC in the Spring. All preparatory stuff, the lessons, the faith teaching etc is being done outside of school hours in special classes on a Friday night IIRC and the school isn't involved at all. But you'll rarely here that being recognised on debates about the RCC's role these days. All you'll hear about is brainwashing, indoctrination, inflexibility etc etc.

Sonics2k

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Do you mean religion as in different faiths? No. Just as relevant as History or Geography.

If you mean Catholicism, then yes. The churches will do a better job of education their own faith.

as far the non-compulsory argument, what for the kids who don't do religion? Free time? Why not just commit the extra time to classes all the kids can attend?

Hmm, I wouldn't rely on the Irish system to teach about other religions.

In my school one of our teachers tried teaching us about the "Hairy Khristnas", once I'd stopped laughing I was made leave the room

ISAW

angeleyes wrote: »

I know that this is an ambition of the current Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn.

My DD attends the primary school ... I will and do teach my DD her prayers and bring her to Mass (if she wants to go).

For a while I thought you had a doctorate in divinities

Another bug bear of mine is that the Board of Management of my local primary school is under the control and patronage of the said same Catholic Church.

Ithink you should check the act. while clerics are a minorty on the RC boards they CoI have a majority Religious presence.

The local priest is Chairman of the BOM and is a mini dictator - its his way or nothing.

Have you asked him what lines of appeal there are if everyone else disagrees with him?
I doubt it has happened but what if it did? I'm not suggesting people chalange him buti think if you are suggesting the rest of the board dont exercise their powers that isnt his fault it is theirs.

According to the 1998 Education act the powers rest ultimately with the
Patron and the Minister http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0051/index.html

The Patron usually being the bishop.

Also when the school was officially opened recently it was done by the Bishop of the diocese who not only covered up clerical abuse also it is alleged has a problem with alcohol which to me does not have the merits of someone who should be patron of a school. Ok that is just a once of case in point.

The fact that you don't consider a patron suitable or a Minister suitable does not remove their legal responsibility or authority.

My question is - should schools be taken out of the hands of the Church.

And replaced by another patron? Which one?

Should a priest have the deciding vote on a member of staff

Usually they don't. Casting votes are usually only called in when there is a 50/50 split and the chair has a casting vote. Also unions staff and parents make up the rump of the votes not priests.

as to whether or not they practice the Catholic ethos?

In that case certainly - if the board made a decision which is against the ethos of the school the patron would legally have to disband them. Who better to decide on catholic ethos or pastoral issues than a cleric or someone who is versed in canon law or theology?

Does it really matter and do we as parents really want priests access to our children?

Well now the mask is slipping. You just don't want priests in schools. Funny how you want the ethos and education and all that that the Church provides but not the church itself. Well move the child if you want to a non ethos school or educate them at home that is their right.

RMD

Remove religion from primary schools, they don't have the mental capacity IMO to fully comprehend religion and what it is at that age. I think it should be taught in schools at 2nd level but a purely educational point of view, no religion gets preference and the whole point would be to end ignorance / rejection of others beliefs.

Show them that not every Muslim is a radical, not every Catholic priest is a peadophile, not every Christian is a loopy American and such. Basically, counteract half the shíte media (tabloids more so) puts forward regularly enough.

Sonics2k

Scary thought I know, but parents could always teach about such things at home, and leave the teachers to the actual important things.

prinz

Sonics2k wrote: »

Scary thought I know, but parents could always teach about such things at home, and leave the teachers to the actual important things.

Having known a good few (now) teachers in my college days, religion isn't the only thing I'll be teaching a home :pac:..... throw in English, history, geography....

Zorbas

The way religion is taught is by way of indoctrination (previously known as religios instruction) which explains why people retain the religion they are born into and why so few change their beliefs while most people change their views on everything else over time.
Certainly those who teach a religion in primary school are not required or qualified to give alternative religious education and often do not provide good example.
Parents should also desist from indoctrinating their children.
Religions should be a subject for higher education taught by qualified lecturers and to more mature students.

JohnnyTodd

Trolling deleted

JohnnyTodd

Thats nonsense.

It's not just a few of them. I'd say well over 50% have abused children.

Read the paper and there's scandals everyday what they are up to.

A local priest in black rock Dundalk had to be removed recently. Another coverup we ll never know the truth

PDN

JohnnyTodd wrote: »

Thats nonsense.

It's not just a few of them. I'd say well over 50% have abused children.

Read the paper and there's scandals everyday what they are up to.

A local priest in black rock Dundalk had to be removed recently. Another coverup we ll never know the truth

Mod warning.

Unless you want to be permbanned then I strongly suggest you scale back the rhetoric and the unsubstantiated and wild accusations.

Btw, living very close to Blackrock, Dundalk I do read my local paper. It reported this week that the priest in question has been vindicated after the PSNI found that the allegations were without any basis or credibility.

Now, if you want to discuss clerical child abuse, and can do so without breaching the Forum Charter, please take it to the Clerical Child Abuse thread.

JohnnyTodd

Seeing as You can't really offer a negative opinion on this without it being taken down I give up.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sonics2k wrote: »

Hmm, I wouldn't rely on the Irish system to teach about other religions.

In my school one of our teachers tried teaching us about the "Hairy Khristnas", once I'd stopped laughing I was made leave the room

I am of course assuming that teacher trainging goes with it as it would with any other subject!

soterpisc

JohnnyTodd wrote: »

Seeing as You can't really offer a negative opinion on this without it being taken down I give up.

Because your "opinion" that 50% of priest have abused is unfounded in any truth.. Deeply offensive and ignorant. The usually ranting troller.

The Quadratic Equation

There are probably not enough non Catholic schools in some areas. This needs to be addressed. A lot of parents do not want to bring their children up as Catholics, but instead want to bring them up as non denominational theists. That's fine, they should set up such schools, and receive the same funding as everyone else does.

But please don't try to pretend this particular philosophy / belief should also be forced onto Catholic children in their own Catholic owned schools. They are entitled to be brought up in their own religion, in their own schools, and receive the same state funding as any other denomination / philosophy does. Lets hope Ho Chi Quinn grasps this simple concept if he wishes to make any progress.

bonniebede

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

There are probably not enough non Catholic schools in some areas. This needs to be addressed. A lot of parents do not want to bring their children up as Catholics, but instead want to bring them up as non denominational Christians. That's fine, they should set up such schools, and receive the same funding as everyone else does.

But please don't try to pretend this particular philosophy / belief should also be forced onto Catholic children in their own Catholic owned schools. They are entitled to be brought up in their own religion, in their own schools, and receive the same state funding as any other denomination / philosophy does. Lets hope Ho Chi Quinn grasps this simple concept if he wishes to make any progress.

quite right. Parents should be the deciding factor, no one else will ever have the same relationship with them to educate them. Problem is largely caused though by the Churches failure, and by church I mean laity and clergy , to evangelise a whole generation or two, who now have little grasp or desire for the faith...

but it is worrying how little philosphy these people have, who really seem not to be able to grasp that their secular humanism is as much a belief system as anything else... closest thing to invincible ignorance i've ever seen.

homer911

My view as a non-Catholic Christian - No. If that was the case then the non-Catholic schools would also be put in the same position, and I'd prefer that wasn't the case

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

There are probably not enough non Catholic schools in some areas. This needs to be addressed. A lot of parents do not want to bring their children up as Catholics, but instead want to bring them up as non denominational theists. That's fine, they should set up such schools, and receive the same funding as everyone else does.

But please don't try to pretend this particular philosophy / belief should also be forced onto Catholic children in their own Catholic owned schools. They are entitled to be brought up in their own religion, in their own schools, and receive the same state funding as any other denomination / philosophy does. Lets hope Ho Chi Quinn grasps this simple concept if he wishes to make any progress.

I don't think the state should fund ANY thiest school, Catholic or otherwise. There are always going to be non-catholic kids in schools in remote areas where, as you rightly point out, there may well be no alternative. Thee are probably some in the built-up areas as well, and I don't see the point in giving these kids an opt-out option or extra free time while the rest of the school is in session.

The Quadratic Equation

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think the state should fund ANY thiest school

A truly secular state (which I want) does not show any preference to atheism or theism, so I'm afraid your exclusively athiest state school system is out. If the funding is made available to one particular philosophy or belief, equally it must also be made available to others. The solution to maintaining this right, is not to remove the same right away from others.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

A truly secular state (which I want) does not show any preference to atheism or theism, so I'm afraid your exclusively athiest state school system is out. If the funding is made available to one particular philosophy or belief, equally it must also be made available to others. The solution to maintaining this right, is not to remove the same right away from others.

Or should fund all schools on an equal footing - sorry, should have made that clear.

The Quadratic Equation

homer911 wrote: »

My view as a non-Catholic Christian - No. If that was the case then the non-Catholic schools would also be put in the same position, and I'd prefer that wasn't the case

Bingo. The part where COI and Presbyterian schools would also be forced to become state non denominational polytheist/atheist schools is also kept quiet. They pretend it's only the Catholics they are after.

bonniebede

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think the state should fund ANY thiest school, Catholic or otherwise. There are always going to be non-catholic kids in schools in remote areas where, as you rightly point out, there may well be no alternative. Thee are probably some in the built-up areas as well, and I don't see the point in giving these kids an opt-out option or extra free time while the rest of the school is in session.

Try this for size. Let the state manage the building. Let any interest group with enough children to form a class (12 kids) occupy whatever number of classrooms they need according to size. Let each group have their own head teacher, ethos, curriculum etc. Let the kids mix at playtime.

So in a Dublinh school;, typically 16 class rooms could theoretically have sixteen different groups running a mini school on the premises. But would more likely breakdown into something like 6 Catholic, 1 other Christian or multidenom Christian, 1 or two classes non denom, maybe a secular humanist, probably some irish language..
Let them work it out to manage the physical facilities,and classes could be changed based on enrolment. Say the number wanting the Catholic class dropped and more wanted the non denom, then that classROOM would be transferred to the management of that ethos. At the moment there might be some ebb and flow as people realised they really had access to choice, but eventually one would expect it to be fairly stable.

Of course the teacher would be employed by the group who would set their own priorities, like maybe they would want a secular humanist to teach their secular humanist class etc.
Let the state money follow the parents choice of school.

and some teacher might be populasr because of the quality of their teaching. Great. Sokme teachers I know deserve to be recognised as absolutely brilliant, heroes, other SHOULD go out of business instead of being inflicted on kids year after year.

Classes would probably combine more than one age group, but this is ormal in smaller schools and some teaching systems actually prefer it instead of artificially screening kids by age, it can let them find a mix of abilites which is more realistic.

Smaller country schools could perhaps combine over greater geographical distances, but sometimes you have to face the fact that where you live you are a tiny minority and you need to either homeschool, or teach your own views at home.

Could be interesting to see what would actually emerge. How about more Montessori teaching for right through primary, or otrher religions who have very little look in like buddhism. I would expect that militant atheism would probably get some support too.

Cato Maior

This matter of 'atheist' schools is repeatedly brought up in debates on this topic, but I have yet to come across anyone proposing such a school. What most on the 'secular' side of the argument is looking for is for something like the 'educated together' model, where comparative religious and cultural studies would form part of the regular school day, and that religious instruction into particular faiths would be accommodated by the school, outside school hours and by a teacher who is not in the pay of the state. How this can be construed as an 'atheist ethos' school is somewhat beyond me.

Mervyn Crawford

Religious belief is a personal matter. In the sense that its dictums and tenets cannot be subject to scientific examination.

During the Enlightenment the principle of separation of Chuch and State was established.
This was partly because the Church was an arm of the state in its suppression of the population on behalf of the ruling class.

However, this was the Enlightenment period, and the demand for separation was also fought for because of the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of imposing religious belief per se.

In the dissenting religions in Ireland it was possible to find atheistic pastors. Persons who followed the issue of democracy and truth to its logical conclusion. The new bourgeois ideas of individual freedom coupled with rational analysis led many to oppose religion as obfuscation.

Tied in with opposition to political control by religious powers, and the view that religion was the denial of objective truth, the campaign for separation promoted the right of individuals to have religious belief and practise it; but this must have no connection with, or influence over, the state, in any way.

recedite

bonniebede wrote: »

Try this for size. Let the state manage the building. Let any interest group with enough children to form a class (12 kids) occupy whatever number of classrooms they need according to size. Let each group have their own head teacher, ethos, curriculum etc. Let the kids mix at playtime.

So in a Dublinh school;, typically 16 class rooms could theoretically have sixteen different groups running a mini school on the premises. But would more likely breakdown into something like 6 Catholic, 1 other Christian or multidenom Christian, 1 or two classes non denom, maybe a secular humanist, probably some irish language..
Let them work it out to manage the physical facilities,and classes could be changed based on enrolment. Say the number wanting the Catholic class dropped and more wanted the non denom, then that classROOM would be transferred to the management of that ethos. At the moment there might be some ebb and flow as people realised they really had access to choice, but eventually one would expect it to be fairly stable.

Of course the teacher would be employed by the group who would set their own priorities, like maybe they would want a secular humanist to teach their secular humanist class etc.
Let the state money follow the parents choice of school.

and some teacher might be populasr because of the quality of their teaching. Great. Sokme teachers I know deserve to be recognised as absolutely brilliant, heroes, other SHOULD go out of business instead of being inflicted on kids year after year.

Classes would probably combine more than one age group, but this is ormal in smaller schools and some teaching systems actually prefer it instead of artificially screening kids by age, it can let them find a mix of abilites which is more realistic.

Smaller country schools could perhaps combine over greater geographical distances, but sometimes you have to face the fact that where you live you are a tiny minority and you need to either homeschool, or teach your own views at home.

Could be interesting to see what would actually emerge. How about more Montessori teaching for right through primary, or otrher religions who have very little look in like buddhism. I would expect that militant atheism would probably get some support too.

Interesting idea in theory, but in practice viable class sizes are in the high twenties. In a lot of cases no single interest group would get that number locally. So in those cases, the safest default option would seem to be; leave the religious indoctrination at home, and only teach vaguely the subject "world religions" in school.

Mervyn Crawford

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like-minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men’s consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

The presence of religious control, and indoctrination, in the education of children and youth is a medieval phenomenon.

Cato Maior

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

The presence of religious control, and indoctrination, in the education of children and youth is a medieval phenomenon.

I'm sorry, but just for clarification, are you in favour of the right of a parent to raise their child in their own faith and to organise instruction in that faith for them?

Also, what needs to be made clear is that when saying that religion should be a private affair, that should only mean that it should have no role in public affairs; i.e. in the running of the state or in the making of any laws or regulations. What it does not mean is that someone's religious beliefs cannot be given any public expression. Freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly together imply that persons must have the freedom to worship publicly according to their religion, all within the usual bounds, of course.

recedite

Cato Maior wrote: »

Also, what needs to be made clear is that when saying that religion should be a private affair, that should only mean that it should have no role in public affairs

So who should pull out of education; Religions or the State? Is education a private or a public affair?

Cato Maior

recedite wrote: »

So who should pull out of education; Religions or the State? Is education a private or a public affair?

I think that anyone who thinks that there will be a black or white solution to that particular issue is barking mad (not you!). It is a messy area for a variety of reasons and the solution will involve compromise and a lot of grey.

Mervyn Crawford

The education of society's members must be free from all religious ineterference, instruction etc.

The rights of the parent are not absolute. Just as those of the state are not.

In a progressive society the state takes the major and enlightened role in education of its citizens - as it does now.

However, our society, though a great step forward from that of the feudal era, is still one run by an elite ruling class which has every interest in, and intention of, keeping the mass of society unfree. Religious indoctrination is a major component of the enslavement of the people.

Religious beliefs cannot be proven in any way, by their very nature. Such beliefs therefore have to be a private matter for the individual. For them to decide whether to believe or not. 'Educating' children in something that cannot be tested scientifically, and is based purely on irrational belief, is actually to deny the rights of that child, and exploit their dependence.

Removing religious 'instruction' (and the role of clergy in governance) from the education system is not suppressing an individual's right to practise their religion. Rather it is asserting that for society to develop it must educate its citizens rationally.

To repeat, the principle of separation of Church and State, has as one of its pillars the proposal that the state must constitutionally defend an individual's right to practise their faith. But that is as far as it goes.

Religion must play no part whatsoever in official civic society. Have no role in any state institutions (education, health, broadcasting media, the press, libraries....). Receive no monies from the state in any form (including tax breaks).

The vast properties and wealth of religions, which was effectively stolen from the population, must be taken by the state. Leaving religions their places of worship. The religions must pay all their own cost from their own membership.

philologos

Personally, I don't have any qualms with secular schools, but I think that faith schools should exist and are beneficial to society. Parent's should have a choice as to whether or not to send their child to a secular school or a faith school.

As for the post that teachers should teach the important stuff, I guess we have a difference of opinion insofar that any other subject will certainly have temporal importance for the Christian hearing about the Gospel will have eternal importance.

We're in the Christianity forum, we should be aiming to understand the other here rather than talking past each other.

There's also the extremely dubious claim in the above post that people should be taught "rationally" and that in their position that Christian belief isn't rational. I have yet to hear from any unbeliever as to why God's existence is fundamentally unreasonable.

lmaopml

Rant Alert...

Honestly, sometimes reading some of the soapboxing about how education should be in Ireland makes me despair. Yes, there shoud be more ET schools, but no that doesn't come with a side order of there should only be ET schools, according to the views of some atheists who happen to live in Ireland with everybody else living here.

The truth is that the ET schools are funded by the state. However, it does take getting up off your bums and joining together in communities to actually have a voice to open one.....I'd say even Catholics would actually sign up and help you to be honest - I know I would.

That's how Gaelscoils start etc. and their ethos, ET schools are no different, and neither are the opinions of the parents any more relevant or important simply because they are parents who are Atheist as opposed to parents who would like their child to learn in Irish....or would like their child to attend a school with a religious ethos. In fact lots of Catholics go to ET schools too..

IF the 'faith' schools didn't follow the curriculum, or the children where really lagging behind in the core subjects etc. than maybe it would be something worth talking about even - but as it is, they aren't, and there is still a demand for them in very many areas too...

So yes, I wish you had more ET schools Atheists out there, in fact, I'd sign a petition and write a strongly worded letter to the powers that be in the community, if somebody knocked on my door with the get up and go to actually look for the funding to open one, and highlight the need for one, and demand the funding and facilites from the State......shees!

Rant over!

Zorbas

Cato Maior wrote: »

I'm sorry, but just for clarification, are you in favour of the right of a parent to raise their child in their own faith and to organise instruction in that faith for them?

.

How can anyone consider it good to raise their child exclusively in their own faith?
Inevitably the way religion instruction is given it amounts to indoctrination and encourages prejudice in immature minds.
Religious education should be non-demoninational and include unbiased awareness of and respect for the major religons and belief systems of the world.
Of course the values of the parents are important and to be treasured but it is possible to bring up children in a way which does not insist on adherence to "an accident of birth" belief system. The insistence of the RCC that the children of mixed marriage should be brought up in "the true faith" was a disgrace to freedom and disrespectful of those with other beliefs.
The importance of having a wider religious education is most beneficial when one belief system fails to live up to expectation. Without understanding of the good in all belief systems the individual may feel lost and depressed when in fact there are other good alternatives.

prinz

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Religion must play no part whatsoever in official civic society. Have no role in any state institutions (education, health, broadcasting media, the press, libraries....). Receive no monies from the state in any form (including tax breaks)..

Presumably the logical result of that is that atheists alone are allowed to run for public office, or as civil servants. For as soon as a Catholic, Muslim, Jew or whoever does anything whatsoever that coincides with their religious moral and ethical beliefs they will be accused of bias and of trying to shoe-horn religion into official civic society...

Zorbas wrote: »

How can anyone consider it good to raise their child exclusively in their own faith?..

I think you are confusing two things. Should parents insulate their children from all other faiths and wider religious education? No, of course not. It's important that they learn these things. Should parents be allowed to share their faith with their kids? Of course they should. Unless you are going to start objecting to parents bringing their kids to football matches, or watching x tv programmes in front of them, or vegetarianism, or a love of reading, or any number of a huge number of activities and interests and beliefs.

Zorbas wrote: »

Of course the values of the parents are important and to be treasured but it is possible to bring up children in a way which does not insist on adherence to "an accident of birth" belief system..

What's that then? Organising a baby-sitter every time you go to a mass/service for example?

Penn

lmaopml wrote: »

Rant Alert...

Honestly, sometimes reading some of the soapboxing about how education should be in Ireland makes me despair. Yes, there shoud be more ET schools, but no that doesn't come with a side order of there should only be ET schools, according to the views of some atheists who happen to live in Ireland with everybody else living here.

The truth is that the ET schools are funded by the state. However, it does take getting up off your bums and joining together in communities to actually have a voice to open one.....I'd say even Catholics would actually sign up and help you to be honest - I know I would.

That's how Gaelscoils start etc. and their ethos, ET schools are no different, and neither are the opinions of the parents any more relevant or important simply because they are parents who are Atheist as opposed to parents who would like their child to learn in Irish....or would like their child to attend a school with a religious ethos. In fact lots of Catholics go to ET schools too..

IF the 'faith' schools didn't follow the curriculum, or the children where really lagging behind in the core subjects etc. than maybe it would be something worth talking about even - but as it is, they aren't, and there is still a demand for them in very many areas too...

So yes, I wish you had more ET schools Atheists out there, in fact, I'd sign a petition and write a strongly worded letter to the powers that be in the community, if somebody knocked on my door with the get up and go to actually look for the funding to open one, and highlight the need for one, and demand the funding and facilites from the State......shees!

Rant over!

I'm an atheist and I'd generally agree with you. I think there should be faith schools. But I think what we need is an inverse of what we have now. I think that ET-type schools should be the norm, and if a community wants a 'faith' school, they should get together, petition for it and have one separate from the ET one. They can teach all the religion they like provided they still meet provisions set out by the Department of Education.

Generally, the issue is that the vast majority of schools are 'faith' schools, which is understandable given our country's history. But that's exactly what it is... history. If the government funds the schools, the schools should be secular. Religion should still be taught, but all religions, as something many people believe in, to give children knowledge of other people's religions and why they may celebrate things differently or do certain things. Then if sector of a community want a school exclusively for their religion, they can get it set up and receive funding from the State provided they meet certain requirements.

I've talked to people who either have or plan to get their child christened because it'd be the best way to get them into the local schools. Where I currently live now, if I had a child, the nearest ET school is almost 30mins away. I could try get them into my local school (5mins away and which a bus goes past) but the odds wouldn't be that great. If they didn't get in there, there's a good chance I'd have to move. Surely that's not right, when ET schools are designed for everyone of all religions. Surely the vast majority of schools should be like that, where everyone is equal, rather than faith schools which may discriminate based on religion. It's not right.

nickcave

I'm starting to get a feeling for what is and is not allowed to be said on this forum, so I'd like to preface this with a warning that this is simply my honest opinion and that I think I deserve the right to speak freely and without hindrance. Of course, I also accept responsibility for the reaction of others and loss of esteem on my part which may result.

Anyway:

In an ideal situation, I'd expect there to be no faith-based school system in operation whatsoever. I think it's extremely irresponsible and reckless to indoctrinate children with the type of beliefs that religious people hold. Kids will be at a disadvantage if they cannot think independently in adult life, and religious education is obviously not secular education.

If parents wish to bring their children up in a religious tradition, then they should be free to do so: the state ought to have no say in this. But when education puts these traditions in schools, where they can (and do) clearly conflict with the content of other curricula (science most notably), then this shouldn't be considered appropriate at all.

However, we don't live in an ideal world. Many of us (myself included) were brought up in religious schools and it simply isn't fair to impose a new system over the old - too many people would take issue with this. So the debate really becomes: how to balance progressive secular education with the needs of parents?

I don't have any children - so this isn't an issue for me yet. All I would hope for at this point is that if I do have kids, that they could be brought up in a skeptical, independent and curiosity-driven educational environment. I fully back Ruairi Quinn's efforts if it leads in any way to the creation of this.

Tomk1

As this has been brought up by OP and here

ISAW wrote: »

Have you asked him what lines of appeal there are if everyone else disagrees with him?
I doubt it has happened but what if it did? I'm not suggesting people chalange him buti think if you are suggesting the rest of the board dont exercise their powers that isnt his fault it is theirs.

According to the 1998 Education act the powers rest ultimately with the
Patron and the Minister http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0051/index.html

The Patron usually being the bishop.

Just for clarity, the minister has absolutely no legal power to remove a Patron or patronage from a school, if the board objects about the Patron, the Patron has full power to disolve that board and replace it with one more suitable to the Patrons doctrine.

prinz

nickcave wrote: »

However, we don't live in an ideal world. Many of us (myself included) were brought up in religious schools....

So, how is not thinking independently treating you?

tfitzgerald

I'm all in favour of keeping the catholic church involved in schools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I'm all in favour of keeping the catholic church involved in schools

All in favour of them keeping the church involved in Catholic schools, I hope you mean?

nickcave

prinz wrote: »

So, how is not thinking independently treating you?

Well I obviously didn't buy any of it, did I? Most kids won't - given the correct learning environment.

tfitzgerald

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

All in favour of them keeping the church involved in Catholic schools, I hope you mean?

I mean any school the church is currently involved in . I believe those ties should be maintained and even strengthened

Cato Maior

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I mean any school the church is currently involved in . I believe those ties should be maintained and even strengthened

Article 44.2.4° and Article 44.2.2° of the Constitution might be pertinent here. Neither are really being observed properly in many schools as it is, without any further strengthening.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tfitzgerald wrote: »

I mean any school the church is currently involved in . I believe those ties should be maintained and even strengthened

Why so?

Keylem

The main Christian churches are united in their determination to resist any moves by the Government that would dilute the ethos of faith-based schools. The Irish Catholic has learned that Church of Ireland, Presbyterian and Methodist leaders are standing firm with Catholic leaders in their resolve to oppose legislation that would effectively eliminate the distinctive character of the schools and deny parents the right to choose such an education for their children.
As all of the Churches await the final report of the Government's Forum on School Patronage -- due before Christmas -- it is understood that a threat to rule 68 has emerged as the major concern.
Rule 68 states that ''a religious ethos should inform and vivify the whole work of the school''.
A senior Catholic Church source said that the removal of the rule ''would mean that faith-based schools would effectively be prevented from being faith-based schools.

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/churches-unite-defend-faith-schools