Baptism cert for school?

robindch

Zamboni wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest - Is lying to get something you want a moral lesson you plan on teaching your child or would this proposed discretion be something you would keep hidden from them?

In the context of a state policy which can require parents to lie in order to ensure that their kids receive the education that the constitution provides for, dishonesty is a unpleasant, but entirely rational, policy.

If I had to lie about religious belief in order to get my child educated, I'd be quite happy to do it and equally happy to tell everybody that I had, once my child had secured a place at a state-funded school.

Dades

Children don't want to be pawns in a game chess played out by adults. My kids want to go to school with the kids on their street, and in Montessori. They want to car-pool with the neighbours and trick-or-treat outside their own house at Halloween.

There's more than enough cultural catholics to fill any void left by non-believer's children in popular local schools, so taking one for the team is a pointless exercise except in your head.

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest - Is lying to get something you want a moral lesson you plan on teaching your child or would this proposed discretion be something you would keep hidden from them?

Disingenuous and uncalled for. Less of this, please.

swampgas

I think Zamboni has a valid point (which was put a little too bluntly, IMO), but misses the bigger issue that adults are being forced to compromise themselves in the best interests of their children. I doubt many parents in this situation are too thrilled about it.

The real problem here is the fact that parents in this country have so little control over the schools that their taxes provide and that their government is supposed to manage and regulate. That many parents have to go through the charade of pretending religious adherence simply to gain access to schools, and that there seems to be bugger all that they can do about it, is a pretty sad indictment of the Irish political system.

ShooterSF

Actually I'd say the problem is that we only look to parents input on this issue when it's a society wide concern. Just because I don't intend to produce direct offspring doesn't mean I won't have interaction with other people who have come through this education system. The time to fight is not when you have a kid or even when you are thinking of having one but the moment you realise the problems mass amounts of our population going through religious instruction will affect your life sooner or later.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

1. Zulu does not suggest that he (she?) as willing to lie to get the child into school, or that he needs to do so; he is willing to lie to get the child into a particular school.

2The lie he contemplates telling is not a lie about the child, but about himself. He does not intend to say falsely that the child was baptised; he intends (if necessary) to tell falsehoods about his own beliefs and intentions in order to get the child baptised, after which he can say truthfully that the child has been baptised.

3. It’s an interesting moral question whether telling a lie about yourself is less bad than telling a lie about someone else, but it is not our business to pass judgment on Zulu. But there’s a practical dimension to this; if Zulu, as suggested by some, photoshops a plausible looking baptismal cert and presents that to the school, he is not only lying but also committing forgery, which is a crime (and quite a serious one). Obviously Zulu might make a judgment about whether the crime will be detected and, if detected, prosecuted, but it’s an issue that should at least be considered. Plus, the child may be more likely to be expelled for being admitted on the basis of falsified documents than to be expelled because, although baptised, it turns out that they are not being raised as Catholics. The latter situation is quite common in Catholic schools; the former vanishingly rare, and therefore likely to be regarded as much more shocking.

4. The justification about lying to get into school on the basis that it is necessary to do so to vindicate the constitutional right to an education is I think weaker if the lie is told to secure entry to a particular school, as here.

5. The justification also needs to take account of the fact that lying to secure entry to a school deprives someone else of a place to the school – someone who, if the truth were told, would be awarded the place. This is not a “victimless crime”.

iguana

I think Zamboni's point is highly relevant tbh. If this is about getting your child an education you have to bear in mind as a parent that ultimately you are likely to be their greatest educator. Is lying to get your own way really one of the first lessons you want to teach them? Because they won't remain children forever, one day they will become aware of what you did and it may very well colour their view of you and how they should conduct themselves in the world. I don't believe there is a definitive right or wrong to that question. It's a subjective situation and different people will have different opinions on what the right or wrong thing is to do. But it's best to accept that it is a questionable act and examine it from each possible angle, acknowledging that it is questionable and your first instinct may not be the right one. It also is a decision that will play a part on what happens to our society as a whole and as such we need to accept that non-parents and not yet parents have a right to voice their opinion because our decisions impact them too.

As for the importance of the child's education in those first years at school, well we are talking about the early years of primary school. It's a pretty basic level of education and a lot of colouring and playing with marla. Nothing a parent as articulate as those who have posted on this thread wouldn't be able to teach their child at home, even if they work during the week.

Dades

iguana wrote: »

Is lying to get your own way really one of the first lessons you want to teach them? Because they won't remain children forever, one day they will become aware of what you did and it may very well colour their view of you and how they should conduct themselves in the world.

And one day they may be run over by a truck cycling home from a school 3 miles away because you wouldn't swallow your pride and send them to the RC school around the corner. We could wave hypotheticals around all day.

This high-horsery about "lying to get your own way one of the first lessons you teach you children" is just unhelpful. It ignores the real-life sacrifices parents go through every single day for their kids. It drags such dilemmas as "what school?" that keep mummies and daddies awake at night down to a level of dishonesty reserved for con men and bankers.

Leaving aside your cultural catholics, decisions like these don't get made lightly. Particularly now, as it seems you'll be judged by both sides.

seamus

"Lying" is a very simplistic way of putting it.

I prefer "civil disobedience", and yes I think it's important to teach children that civil disobedience is perfectly fine provided that you are combatting a social or civil injustice.

There's also far too much made of this kind of "what will your children think" nonsense. I saw someone on another thread comment about how betrayed he felt when he found out there was no Santa and that "lying" to children about Santa was inherently wrong. Give. me. a. fncking. break.

If a child grown adult is unable to see that you made the choices which you believed were in their best interests, then tough sh1t tbh.

Ickle Magoo

Depends entirely on the school what their particular enrolment protocols are Zulu. We applied to loads of schools around us in case they didn't make it into the local ET and some just asked if they'd been baptised, others said not to bother applying if we couldn't provide a baptismal cert...

That said, if you are desperate the child attend that particular school, it might be worth finding out from other parents in the area what the enrolment criterion actually is, rather than asking the school or relying on what they publicly state...which as we found out, isn't always the whole story.

Best of luck

Obliq

Jogathon wrote: »

Check the enrolment policy of the school. Distance to the school is often listed very high up in the criteria. And ask in the school if they have capped their registration, or if they accept all.

I'd say get someone else to ask, so you don't have to answer awkward questions - in case you have to fake it later

iguana

The fact is that twenty years ago there were already a significant minority of parents who would have preferred to not baptise their children but did so in order to secure a school place (both particular school and any school at all). If they had stood up for their beliefs then the growing minority of people who existed 10 years ago would not have been faced with a choice to make, as the system would have started to reform. If more of the parents from 10 years ago had stuck up for what they believed in, today's parents wouldn't face this dilemma. The only reason we are seeing the small changes that are coming about is because of the few parents who refused to back down. And if we don't do something about it now, 10 years from now the children of the first lot of parents will be stuck in this situation.

At some point someone has to stand up to the system and change it. That's going to achieve more than trying to maintain that quietly playing into the hands of those who benefit most from this system is somehow civil disobedience. Being a parent is not an excuse for giving up trying to change things. If anything it's all the more reason to try to change things. Otherwise all we are doing is leaving our children to fight the battles we backed out of.

Obliq

You make a very good point Iguana. Don't really feel I can comment though as I can both stand up for my beliefs AND get a school place for my child in these parts. The schools are so small they'll take anyone

byhookorbycrook

All schools must have an enrolement policy and must make it available. Most Catholic schools take children of all religions and none.If places are limited, the school may prioritise by the criteria in their policy. Our school is Catholic, but we operate first come,first served and siblings then,as our policy. Best bet OP is to contact the local school and ask for their policy.

Zamboni

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually I'd say the problem is that we only look to parents input on this issue when it's a society wide concern. Just because I don't intend to produce direct offspring doesn't mean I won't have interaction with other people who have come through this education system. The time to fight is not when you have a kid or even when you are thinking of having one but the moment you realise the problems mass amounts of our population going through religious instruction will affect your life sooner or later.

You're right in theory but...
There is no political will to further secularise the Irish Education system outside Ruairi Quinn's narrow ability to provide patronage and schools to non/multi-denominational groups - which is done on a local demand basis.
The reality is the people on the ground campaigning and demanding non/multi-denominational school places are the parents.
Nobody else gives a flying fiddlers.
The reason you got thanks on your post is because people don't have to actually DO anything - they can just sit back on their keyboards and agree with you. They just like the idea. They will do sweet FA.

I acknowledge that I have been blunt on this thread (and iguana has been far more diplomatic than I) but it is a damned frustrating issue.
Especially when the very people you would expect support from are going for the same same approach that simply achieves a status quo.
And it appears that folks are none too happy about having this uncomfortable fact pointed out.

Zamboni

iguana wrote: »

At some point someone has to stand up to the system and change it. That's going to achieve more than trying to maintain that quietly playing into the hands of those who benefit most from this system is somehow civil disobedience. Being a parent is not an excuse for giving up trying to change things. If anything it's all the more reason to try to change things. Otherwise all we are doing is leaving our children to fight the battles we backed out of.

Well said.

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

And it appears that folks are none too happy about having this uncomfortable fact pointed out.

Personally the only thing that I was none to happy about was this bollocks about "lying to get what you want".

You have valid points about what needs to happen to force change but it's your lack of empathy for what can be a very tough time for parents that has put you at odds with people here.

yellowlabrador

This battle was much tougher 20 years ago when my children started school.
I went about it quietly and because it was a rural school and the only one in the area and there were a few CofI children there it happened.
Some of my experiences as an atheist 20 years ago?
I was refused permission to see the doctor at an outpatients clinic because I wouldn't fill in my religion on the registration form. None was not an option.
I was requested to lie by the receptionist. I realised that she was just ignorant and went home and wrote to the UHC. I got an apology.
Another experience was the look of wonder when I told a gathering of neighbours that I had no religion. It hadn't actually crossed their mind that it was possible. I was seen as a bit exotic and people were keen to talk to me about it.
I've actually worked for religious organisations and believe me, truth goes a long way in getting respect. You don't have to be a raging atheist, if you give respect, you'll get respect

(that is apart from one of the local parish priests, if looks could kill, I'd be stone dead)

robindch

yellowlabrador wrote: »

if you give respect, you'll get respect

Doesn't work with fundies.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

"Lying" is a very simplistic way of putting it.

I prefer "civil disobedience", and yes I think it's important to teach children that civil disobedience is perfectly fine provided that you are combatting a social or civil injustice.

Gosh, I think you’re being a bit kind to yourself (or to Zulu) there.

The defining characteristic of civil disobedience is that it’s open and overt. Its purpose is to apply pressure on those in power, to force them to change an unjust law by highlighting the injustice of that law. And (M. K. Gandhi was particulary strong on this point) those engaging in civil disobedience should not seek to avoid the punishment they incur for lawbreaking; that’s an essential part of their witness to injustice. It also undelines that law, and the rule of law, is important, which is precisely why there is a moral imperative to correct unjust laws.

What Zulu suggests does not involve being open; it involves lying. Lying doesn't call attention to the injustice; it covers it up. And Zulu isn't even lying to get the non-religious education for his child that he might feel is his right; he's lying to get him into a religious school.

As others have pointed out, far from applying pressure to change the system, this is lying to support and reinforce the system. It’s pretty much the polar opposite of civil disobedience.

I think if there’s a justification for the course that Zulu is contemplating, it lies in Zulu’s obligation to his child. We can argue, I think, that Zulu’s desire and duty to get the best possible educational situation for the child justifies a great many lesser evils. Or, if it does not justify them, it should at least lead us to understand Zulu’s position, and perhaps to empathise with him.

But presenting it as an act of civil disobedience would, to be honest, tend to alienate and dissipate that sympathy and understanding, since it is so clearly not an act of civil disobedience.

Zamboni

Dades wrote: »

Personally the only thing that I was none to happy about was this bollocks about "lying to get what you want".

I'll accept that I did say it go get a rise out of the OP and fair enough you gave a warning. But bear in mind the irony of calling me disingenuous considering his proposal.

Dades wrote: »

You have valid points about what needs to happen to force change but it's your lack of empathy for what can be a very tough time for parents that has put you at odds with people here.

Now this is 'bollocks'.
Empathise - of course I empathise, I am the situation right now. Experiencing it myself.
I meet hundreds of parents and volunteers like Ivan Bacik out busting their balls trying to raise a few quid and build up support on the ground, hassling politicians, doing their best to give children a school with a non-religious ethos - and actually slowly achieving the goal.
I also meet people who have no choice but to reluctantly put their kids in christian schools through lack of options in rural areas.
It my lack of agreeing with the other side that has me at odds with people.
Anyway, I'm not one for arguing with a mod so I've made my point and I'll feck off now because apart from our difference on this issue, I'm a big fan

Peregrinus

Zamboni wrote: »

Empathise - of course I empathise, I am the situation right now. Experiencing it myself.
I meet hundreds of parents and volunteers like Ivan Bacik out busting their balls trying to raise a few quid and build up support on the ground, hassling politicians, doing their best to give children a school with a non-religious ethos - and actually slowly achieving the goal.
I also meet people who have no choice but to reluctantly put their kids in christian schools through lack of options in rural areas.

Actually, I'm not sure that you do empathise with Zulu.

Your concern is to have the right - the practical, effective right - to send your child to a school with a non-religious ethos.

Zulu's concern is to have the right to send his child to the school of his choice, regardless of the ethos of the school, and of the school's own entrance criteria.

It could be that Zulu prefers the school he does because of the lack of a non-religious alternative, but that's not how Zulu tells it. He wants this school because it is "a fantastic school", his wife went there, it's close to his home and even closer to his in-laws home. He doesn't share the ethos of the school, but he expresses no objection to it or concern about it, and at the very least he is sufficiently unconcerned about the ethos of the school to have "no particular qualms" about holding himself out as someone who shares it.

Nothing he says suggests that he chose the school only because of the lack of an acceptable non-religious alternative. For all we know there may actually be a non-religious alternative, but he prefers this school for the reasons he gives.

robindch

Zamboni wrote: »

[...] volunteers like Ivan Bacik[...]

Ivana Bacik busting her balls? Now, that's something I'm not sure I'd like to see.

Zulu

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I'm not sure that you do empathise with Zulu.

I think he's not concerned to be honest, it would appear he wishes to discuss a different matter; he wishes to discuss his issue at a more macro level. Which is fine.

Zulu's concern is to have the right to send his child to the school of his choice, regardless of the ethos of the school, and of the school's own entrance criteria.

Well theres always a danger putting words into other peoples mouths, so let me clarify...
I'm not against the ethos of the school, quite the opposite actually. It's an element that makes it more attractive to us. And I'm not eager to flaunt the schools entrance criteria either, but it's a position I find myself in. I just don't want to christen my child. (Perhaps a "yet" could be attached to the end of that sentence).

It could be that Zulu prefers the school he does because of the lack of a non-religious alternative

I haven't investigated this.

He doesn't share the ethos of the school, but he expresses no objection to it or concern about it

I would largely share the ethos of the school. I was christened a catholic, but I'd consider myself agnostic. I wouldn't be honestly able to say I'm currently a catholic. I'm closer to a christian that a catholic, but I'm far from either at this point in my life.
I'm not against my child being baptised, but I am against them being baptised at/just after birth. I'd rather they make up their own mind later in their life.

and at the very least he is sufficiently unconcerned about the ethos of the school to have "no particular qualms" about holding himself out as someone who shares it.

I don't wish to lie, but I wouldn't have much of an issue "avoiding" the question if it was posed to me. If it was a requirement, if pushed, and I was forced to lie, and I felt I could get away with it, I'd (clearly) consider it.

@Zamboni & iguana: I get what you are saying, but I've no interest in protesting something at my childs expense. My child won't be raised any worse for it, and I'm happy to take the risk that they'll "resent" me for it. :rolleyes:

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

Anyway, I'm not one for arguing with a mod so I've made my point and I'll feck off now because apart from our difference on this issue, I'm a big fan

Just so you know if I'm not posting a warning or some-such (with a ) I'm just posting as a regular poster and am fair game.

Actually, since Zulu has clarified his position - would this change your thinking (toward him, that is)? He's clearly happy with the ethos of the school unlike some of us more anti-types. Rather than rejecting any religious overtures he simply doesn't want to baptize the child.

Surely he's on higher moral ground that those of us who might attempt to get our kids in with gritted teeth.

I should also point out a factor that gets forgotten sometimes. The "Other Half". If my other half shared my views our kids would be in ET schools (which were applied to - by me - when they were born). As it is - she's a *catholic* and I know to pick my fights. (I am in charge of the census, however!)

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Surely he's on higher moral ground that those of us who might attempt to get our kids in with gritted teeth.

I’m not sure that he is. (No offence, Zulu!)

One the one hand, he says he “largely shares” the ethos of the school. On the other hand, he departs from in a very significant point. The school conceives of itself as a community of people initiated by baptism, and growing in a particular faith. Zamboni’s children are not initiated in baptism and, while he has no strong objection to Catholic Christianity, and in fact sees much to admire in it, his children are not growing in that faith, and he doesn’t want them to. He feels that they should grow first, and then approach the question of faith for themselves.

However much one may respect or even share Zulu’s position, it’s undeniably a pretty fundamental departure from the ethos of the school - fundamental enough that Zulu recognizes that he may have to lie about it in order to get his kids into the school.

I don’t see that that creates any “higher moral ground” for him.

And in one respect it may be positively unhelpful. Obviously, by “cheating” to get his child in, Zulu would deprive another child of a place. If he were what you call a “more anti type”, if he regarded the Catholic ethos as harmful, then he would have one less reason to feel guilty about, or to justify, denying another child this harmful thing. As it is, though, if he were to lie Zulu would be attempting dishonestly to obtain something he believes to be valuable for his child at the expense of another child who, in truth, has a better claim to it. That does give Zulu a moral problem that a more anti type wouldn’t have, I think.

Zulu

Dades wrote: »

I should also point out a factor that gets forgotten sometimes. The "Other Half".

This! It wasn't easy persuading my wife to concede to NOT getting her child baptised. For her, or for me (for that matter). And I'm very, very grateful to her that she made this concession.

Zulu

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not sure that he is. (No offence, Zulu!)

None taken, and you're quite right.

it’s undeniably a pretty fundamental departure from the ethos of the school

Is it really though? Its one sacrament. I'm not even clear it's not going to happen, and, I'm not even clear it's a requirement (at this point)!

Look, my question was - is a cert actually required? If anyone here has had to provide one, I'd appreciate it if they could say as much.

If people wish to utilise this thread to debate the moral authority of lying to educate their child, I've no issue with that. However, clearly, I'd appreciate it if people could leave the antagonistic comments at the door.

By-the-by, thanks for all the help so far.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

And in one respect it may be positively unhelpful. Obviously, by “cheating” to get his child in, Zulu would deprive another child of a place. If he were what you call a “more anti type”, if he regarded the Catholic ethos as harmful, then he would have one less reason to feel guilty about, or to justify, denying another child this harmful thing. As it is, though, if he were to lie Zulu would be attempting dishonestly to obtain something he believes to be valuable for his child at the expense of another child who, in truth, has a better claim to it. That does give Zulu a moral problem that a more anti type wouldn’t have, I think.

Leaving aside the potentially inflammatory words like "cheating" and "dishonestly", I think any woolly misgivings about preventing someone else's child from being indoctrinated (sorry - couldn't help it!) are trumped by a belief that a tax-payer funded school should be for local children regardless of their parents religion.

Also, baptised kids are very rarely, if ever turned away, so it would be a tenuous hypothetical to base a decision on. It's the non-baptized ones that get culled from the schools in question.

Peregrinus

Zulu wrote: »

Look, my question was - is a cert actually required? If anyone here has had to provide one, I'd appreciate it if they could say as much.

Both the admission criteria, and the way in which they are implemented, will vary from school to school. So you're not going to get an answer you can rely on, other than from the school itself or from another parent whose child has relatively recently been admitted to that school.

Having said that, if the school is "an excellent school", then the likelihood is that it's heavily subscribed. This is a pain for school authorities, and one way to simplify and streamline the admission process (for themselves) is to police effectively those admission criteria which are easily capable of objective verification.

So if one of the admission criteria relates to whether the child has been baptised, then my expectation is that, yes, you will be asked to produce a baptismal certificate, and the inability to do so is not something that you will easily be able to charm your way out of.

But why rely on my expectation? If you don't want to draw attention to yourself and your position by asking the school, ask a neighbour whose child attends the school.