World Religions Course Proposal for schools

jimd2

Interesting article here from the Indo, he certainly makes some valid points though I would have to disagree with his assertion that "Denominational schools already do an excellent job respecting children who come from other faith backgrounds and none".

The author says that the Dept of Education should be encouraging divestment to other patron bodies, to me that must be the objective and focus and not investing effort and resources into this new "subject". Since many Church of Ireland children have access to schools of their faith then I would imagine that the biggest number of children going to schools where they do not follow the religion would be atheists. So drumming up a new subject covering all religions wouldn't be of much interest to them either.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/proposed-world-religions-course-is-a-response-to-a-problem-that-doesnt-exist-34175081.html

katydid

jimd2 wrote: »

Interesting article here from the Indo, he certainly makes some valid points though I would have to disagree with his assertion that "Denominational schools already do an excellent job respecting children who come from other faith backgrounds and none".

The author says that the Dept of Education should be encouraging divestment to other patron bodies, to me that must be the objective and focus and not investing effort and resources into this new "subject". Since many Church of Ireland children have access to schools of their faith then I would imagine that the biggest number of children going to schools where they do not follow the religion would be atheists. So drumming up a new subject covering all religions wouldn't be of much interest to them either.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/proposed-world-religions-course-is-a-response-to-a-problem-that-doesnt-exist-34175081.html

The author is basing his comments on the assumption that denominational religion should be taught in state schools in the first place. The ridiculous proposal here is that this new module be fitted into an already crowded curriculum and the 30 minutes a day where religious indoctrination takes place will still be in situ.

He says "In one class, the pupils, in accordance with the wishes of their parents, will be receiving an education and formation in the faith of the school, but in their very next class those same pupils will be taught about religion in a completely different way."

Why do the wishes of their parents to have their faith taught to them in schools override the right of other students not to be indoctrinated in a faith not theirs, or to have to exclude themselves from the class to avoid this.

This is the real issue here, not adding an extra subject on to the curriculum and leaving this 30 minutes a day in place.

As for atheists learning about religion - why not? Religion is part of our history and culture. Everyone, whether they believe in God or not, should know about world religions and how they influence the way we live our lives.

Cabaal

Ideally I think religion is best left to parents, priests, mass and so called Sunday schools. Religion is a very much a personal thing and its not the governments job to use tax payer money to teach one religion as is the case in approx 92% of schools in Ireland.

On that subject, if the DOE wants to keep a religion subject then the best thing to do is have a world religions subject which covers all beliefs and none, this should replace the current catholic religion class time used in schools (approx 10% of primary level school time based on OECD stats).

Teaching a catholic child about other religions is very important as it expands their views and allows them to critically think about things more, it teaches them to understand that not everybody will share their world view...but thats ok. They can still learn about the catholic faith from their parents and mass.

A world religions subject isn't the best idea, but if it replaced the current setup then its good. If its done ONTOP of the existing catholic religion classes then its an awful waste of important educational time which could be better spend on maths, english, physical education or any number of other subjects.

Manach

This is just a new face that anti-clericism wears. The tenants of religious belief are a core part of the ethos of Catholic schools and of a tradition that embraces the one generation to another: state education lurches from one fad to another. Given the mess the state has made of such subjects as Irish, to image that this particually hostile government has any objective that the chipping away at the foundations of Catholic parents rights, is hard to believe.

Cabaal

Manach wrote: »

This is just a new face that anti-clericism wears. The tenants of religious belief are a core part of the ethos of Catholic schools and of a tradition that embraces the one generation to another: state education lurches from one fad to another. Given the mess the state has made of such subjects as Irish, to image that this particually hostile government has any objective that the chipping away at the foundations of Catholic parents rights, is hard to believe.

I fail to see how its chipping away catholic parents right, nobody is stopping them practicing their faith....which as we know very few actually bother to do.

The current system discriminates against non-catholics, which is horrendous considering its discriminating against children.

If a parent wants to teach their child about the catholic faith then there are tonnes of opportunities for them to do so. They can read the bible at bedtime, go to mass, go to sunday school.....just to match your viewpont we'll ignore the fact that most parents don't actually want to do any these things.

Face it, 80% of people may call themselves catholic. But closer to 30% only have any real interest in practicing the faith on a weekly basis.

Its amusing to see you critical of the government here when the church have ruined their own public image and turned so many people away from them on their own,

Manach

The dismissive attitude shown and the reliance of the tired old trope of,we all know that, is yet more reliance of argument by obfuscation and ignorance. It blithely ignores by hand waving and wringing the concerns of others in the secular religons bottomless faith in governmence of the top down model and ignoring the what does not fit into their command driven world view by an attempt to firewall it from the public sphere. If your aim is to blithely children's and parents customary belief which has been part of their historic and cultural identify and leave them better than monads, than one can query your aspiration to promote anything outside a narrow ideology.

Nick Park

If you want State funding then I guess you have to play by the State's rules.

katydid

Manach wrote: »

This is just a new face that anti-clericism wears. The tenants of religious belief are a core part of the ethos of Catholic schools and of a tradition that embraces the one generation to another: state education lurches from one fad to another. Given the mess the state has made of such subjects as Irish, to image that this particually hostile government has any objective that the chipping away at the foundations of Catholic parents rights, is hard to believe.

The problem here is your use of the word "Catholic schools". Unless schools are run by and financed by a religious denomination or organisation, it is inaccurate - wrong, let's not mince words here - to use a religious adjective to describe them. The schools you call "Catholic" are in fact state schools; run by and financed by the state. The employees are state employees, who are being obliged to teach the beliefs of particular religions and denominations.

Surely it is the responsibility of the religious body concerned to organise its own way of passing its beliefs on to the next generations? Is it not the job of priests and religious and, if they are willing, lay volunteers?

Is Roman Catholicism so weak and uncertain that its foundations can be "chipped away" by teaching children that there are other religious beliefs, and that those who don't hold religious beliefs can be decent, moral people? This proposal is not to stop indoctrinating children, but to take time out from other subjects to teach these things, so I don't know why you're worried. Indoctrination and its corollary, exclusion, will continue.

katydid

Cabaal wrote: »

I
If a parent wants to teach their child about the catholic faith then there are tonnes of opportunities for them to do so. They can read the bible at bedtime, go to mass, go to sunday school.....

But...that would mean getting up early on a Sunday morning! Come off it, that's a bit of an ask. Far better, surely, to entrust your child's faith development to a stranger of whose beliefs you know nothing.

Ah but you'll turn up on the morning of the First Communion in your glad rags...

katydid

Nick Park wrote: »

If you want State funding then I guess you have to play by the State's rules.

Not sure what you're getting at, Nick.

byhookorbycrook

It's not just Catholic schools, it's any faith based school. I dislike the way Catholic based schools are singled out. Yes, I know the vast majority of schools are Catholic, but not exclusively so.

Nick Park

katydid wrote: »

Not sure what you're getting at, Nick.

If people want schools that teach their own religious views then they should be free to run and fund those schools themselves.

If they want the State to fund their schools with taxpayers' money then the State can reasonably insist that religion is taught in a way that reflects the diversity of views among taxpayers.

katydid

Nick Park wrote: »

If people want schools that teach their own religious views then they should be free to run and fund those schools themselves.

If they want the State to fund their schools with taxpayers' money then the State can reasonably insist that religion is taught in a way that reflects the diversity of views among taxpayers.

Ah ok. Instead the state panders to these people.

steamengine

Nick Park wrote: »

If people want schools that teach their own religious views then they should be free to run and fund those schools themselves.

If they want the State to fund their schools with taxpayers' money then the State can reasonably insist that religion is taught in a way that reflects the diversity of views among taxpayers.

The thing about it is though, does atheism not fall into a specific religious category also, even if it is a negative belief system, and should the same not apply ? Atheists should be free to run and fund their schools also, or get state support just like the religious schools.

katydid

steamengine wrote: »

The thing about it is though, does atheism not fall into a specific religious category also, even if it is a negative belief system, and should the same not apply ? Atheists should be free to run and fund their schools also, or get state support just like the religious schools.

Not the latter. Nobody should get state support for indoctrination of any kind. Like anyone who wishes to subject their children to biased and exclusionary education, they should have to pay for it themselves.


Meanwhile, all the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jew and atheists who want their children to have an equal education with their fellow human beings would be attending state run secular schools.

katydid

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

It's not just Catholic schools, it's any faith based school. I dislike the way Catholic based schools are singled out. Yes, I know the vast majority of schools are Catholic, but not exclusively so.

Other faith schools wouldn't exist if there weren't RC schools. They exist because they are the only alternative to non RC children being indoctrinated in RC beliefs and practices. Get rid of the RC schools, make all state schools secular - problem solved.

Nick Park

steamengine wrote: »

The thing about it is though, does atheism not fall into a specific religious category also, even if it is a negative belief system, and should the same not apply ? Atheists should be free to run and fund their schools also, or get state support just like the religious schools.

Yes, I agree that atheists should be free to fund and run their own schools.

I don't believe any one belief system should have their schools funded by the State.

steamengine

katydid wrote: »

Not the latter. Nobody should get state support for indoctrination of any kind. Like anyone who wishes to subject their children to biased and exclusionary education, they should have to pay for it themselves.


Meanwhile, all the Roman Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jew and atheists who want their children to have an equal education with their fellow human beings would be attending state run secular schools.

I totally disagree with your stance and am somewhat surprised in that you represent the Church of Ireland as a lay cleric. Are you against Protestant schools receiving state support then ?

toptom

Nonsense idea we're a catholic country and our education must remain that way, It didnt do any of us wrong. The protestants always looked after their own schools so the other religions should do the same. Its very important our young keep their heritage and religion is heritage

katydid

steamengine wrote: »

I totally disagree with your stance and am somewhat surprised in that you represent the Church of Ireland as a lay cleric. Are you against Protestant schools receiving state support then ?

Any chance of saying WHY you disagree?

I'm not sure what my religious affiliation or involvement has to do with the issue. You don't have to be non-religious to want a secular education system where all Irish citizens are treated equally.

My religion is my affair, a private matter. And that's where it stays. As it should for everyone; the taxpayers should not subsidise the promotion of my beliefs, or anyone elses.

steamengine

katydid wrote: »

Any chance of saying WHY you disagree?

I'm not sure what my religious affiliation or involvement has to do with the issue. You don't have to be non-religious to want a secular education system where all Irish citizens are treated equally.

My religion is my affair, a private matter. And that's where it stays. As it should for everyone; the taxpayers should not subsidise the promotion of my beliefs, or anyone elses.

Your religion is not very private at all, you chose to tell us about it here on a public forum on many occasions. I disagree with your stance because I believe that religious education is actually a good thing. We still have a critical mass of people who are nominally Christian, at least, and therefore I hold that to be the 'norm' for this country at the moment, not secularism.

PopePalpatine

toptom wrote: »

Nonsense idea we're a catholic country and our education must remain that way, It didnt do any of us wrong. The protestants always looked after their own schools so the other religions should do the same. Its very important our young keep their heritage and religion is heritage

You must have missed the abuse scandal.

Oh, and this "Catholic heritage" wasn't enough to defeat the marriage equality referendum.

steamengine

toptom wrote: »

Nonsense idea we're a catholic country and our education must remain that way, It didnt do any of us wrong. The protestants always looked after their own schools so the other religions should do the same. Its very important our young keep their heritage and religion is heritage

Precisely that, it is the 'Land of Saints and Scholars' after all.

looksee

steamengine wrote: »

The thing about it is though, does atheism not fall into a specific religious category also, even if it is a negative belief system, and should the same not apply ? Atheists should be free to run and fund their schools also, or get state support just like the religious schools.

No, atheism does not fall into a specific religious category, it is not a belief system, it only exists because theism exists and dominates our lives.

There is no need for atheist schools, that would suggest that atheists want children to be taught there is no god, whereas in fact all they want is a completely neutral situation where god - or more to the point, religious indoctrination, is not part of the school curriculum.

I would have no problem in world religion being taught in the same way as history or geography, it would be foolish to ignore it completely considering the overwhelming effect it has had on the world.

toptom

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You must have missed the abuse scandal.

Oh, and this "Catholic heritage" wasn't enough to defeat the marriage equality referendum.

It was only a small number of disturbed people involved in the abuse, Some of the media make it out to be worse so they can sell papers, Without the nuns and brothers who would have educated us ?

Thats in the past i reckon some of it gets exaggerated once the smell of money and compensation come around.

katydid

steamengine wrote: »

Your religion is not very private at all, you chose to tell us about it here on a public forum on many occasions. I disagree with your stance because I believe that religious education is actually a good thing. We still have a critical mass of people who are nominally Christian, at least, and therefore I hold that to be the 'norm' for this country at the moment, not secularism.

It's private in that it's my business, and not anyone else's. I don't have a right to impose my beliefs on anyone, and certainly not to expect the taxpayer to pay someone else to impose my beliefs on other people.

I never said religious education isn't a good thing. It's an excellent thing - and clergy and volunteers in my church carry it out all the time. What is NOT a good thing is the taxpayer paying teachers to do it in state schools in school time. Why do Roman Catholic clergy not involve themselves in religious education; surely it's part of their pastoral duty? Or to organise volunteers from the parish to do it on Sundays or in the evenings like other people do?

Nick Park

looksee wrote: »

No, atheism does not fall into a specific religious category, it is not a belief system, it only exists because theism exists and dominates our lives.

There is no need for atheist schools, that would suggest that atheists want children to be taught there is no god, whereas in fact all they want is a completely neutral situation where god - or more to the point, religious indoctrination, is not part of the school curriculum.

I would have no problem in world religion being taught in the same way as history or geography, it would be foolish to ignore it completely considering the overwhelming effect it has had on the world.

Hmm, not all atheists have agreed with your opinion that there is no need for atheist schools. In societies where atheists have been in a majority, history tells us that State-funded schools usually did teach atheism, often very aggressively.

katydid

Nick Park wrote: »

Hmm, not all atheists have agreed with your opinion that there is no need for atheist schools. In societies where atheists have been in a majority, history tells us that State-funded schools usually did teach atheism, often very aggressively.

Just like fundamentalist religious people, there are fundamentalist atheists, who are as determined to get their point across.

PopePalpatine

toptom wrote: »

It was only a small number of disturbed people involved in the abuse, Some of the media make it out to be worse so they can sell papers, Without the nuns and brothers who would have educated us ?

Thats in the past i reckon some of it gets exaggerated once the smell of money and compensation come around.

I couldn't care less about the nuns and the brothers educating us, that doesn't excuse the abuse and the subsequent cover-up.

Your point about abuse being "exaggerated" really helped your mask to slip.

hinault

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I couldn't care less about the nuns and the brothers educating us, that doesn't excuse the abuse and the subsequent cover-up

No one here tried to claim that the cases of abuse excused anything.

Your inability to comprehend remains undimmed.

steamengine

katydid wrote: »

Other faith schools wouldn't exist if there weren't RC schools. They exist because they are the only alternative to non RC children being indoctrinated in RC beliefs and practices. Get rid of the RC schools, make all state schools secular - problem solved.

Two of my children attended a rural Catholic national school as non-Catholics, there were no issues of any kind and certainly no indoctrination. Personally, I find your post bigoted.

katydid wrote: »

It's private in that it's my business, and not anyone else's. I don't have a right to impose my beliefs on anyone, and certainly not to expect the taxpayer to pay someone else to impose my beliefs on other people.

I never said religious education isn't a good thing. It's an excellent thing - and clergy and volunteers in my church carry it out all the time. What is NOT a good thing is the taxpayer paying teachers to do it in state schools in school time. Why do Roman Catholic clergy not involve themselves in religious education; surely it's part of their pastoral duty? Or to organise volunteers from the parish to do it on Sundays or in the evenings like other people do?

If religious education is such a good thing, then why as a lay minister do you want to make state schools secular ? That your sympathies lie with the tax-payer sounds a bit hollow.


I don't know why you're asking me about anything to do with the Catholic clergy. Again, according to your post history, you as an ex-Catholic would know more about the Catholic church than me.

hinault

People should not be fooled by the Labour Party and their intentions.

All religious ethos based schools should be free to set it's own religious education syllabus.

If a school has a protestant ethos, or a jewish ethos, or an islamic ethos, each should be permitted to teach exclusively a syllabus which conforms to their particular belief ethos.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

People should not be fooled by the Labour Party and their intentions.

All religious ethos based schools should be free to set it's own religious education syllabus.

If a school has a protestant ethos, or a jewish ethos, or an islamic ethos, each should be permitted to teach exclusively a syllabus which conforms to their particular belief ethos.

Why should the taxpayer fund this?

steamengine

hinault wrote: »

People should not be fooled by the Labour Party and their intentions.

All religious ethos based schools should be free to set it's own religious education syllabus.

If a school has a protestant ethos, or a jewish ethos, or an islamic ethos, each should be permitted to teach exclusively a syllabus which conforms to their particular belief ethos.

Well said Hinault.

katydid

steamengine wrote: »

Two of my children attended a rural Catholic national school as non-Catholics, there were no issues of any kind and certainly no indoctrination. Personally, I find your post bigoted.




If religious education is such a good thing, then why as a lay minister do you want to make state schools secular ? That your sympathies lie with the tax-payer sounds a bit hollow.


I don't know why you're asking me about anything to do with the Catholic clergy. Again, according to your post history, you as an ex-Catholic would know more about the Catholic church than me.

You clearly didn't read my post properly. I said there was nothing wrong with religious education. The problem is with religious education in state schools, funded by the taxpayer.

Can you explain what my religious beliefs or activities have to do with that opinion?

I'm not asking you anything about Catholic clergy. I'm asking you about Roman Catholic clergy. I certainly am not an ex-Catholic.

So, are you going to answer or not? Why don't Roman Catholic clergy do the job they are supposed to do?

Did your children attend Roman Catholic religion classes? If so, they were indoctrinated. There are only two options. Indoctrination or exclusion. Which were your children subjected to.

steamengine

katydid wrote: »

You clearly didn't read my post properly. I said there was nothing wrong with religious education. The problem is with religious education in state schools, funded by the taxpayer.

Can you explain what my religious beliefs or activities have to do with that opinion?

I'm not asking you anything about Catholic clergy. I'm asking you about Roman Catholic clergy. I certainly am not an ex-Catholic.

So, are you going to answer or not? Why don't Roman Catholic clergy do the job they are supposed to do?

Oh, I read your posts alright, I even acknowledged your point, but the funny thing is you've dodged my questions, and avoided my points.

You've stated in your posts you left the Roman Catholic church, so as I stated you know more about their clergy than me.

hinault

steamengine wrote: »

Well said Hinault.

Thanks.

Britain is nominally a secular country yet the demand for places at Catholic ethos schools for example increases year on year.

(I presume that the same applies in other ethos based schools there too).

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Thanks.

Britain is nominally a secular country yet the demand for places at Catholic ethos schools for example increases year on year.

(I presume that the same applies in other ethos based schools there too).

No, Britain is not nominally a secular country. The head of state is the head of the Established church and that church has members in the upper house of the government.

The reason Roman Catholic schools are popular over there is because they can pick and choose their students.

katydid

steamengine wrote: »

Oh, I read your posts alright, I even acknowledged your point, but the funny thing is you've dodged my questions, and avoided my points.

You've stated in your posts you left the Roman Catholic church, so as I stated you know more about their clergy than me.

What point did you acknowledge? I didn't notice.

What questions did I "dodge"?

I don't know anything about the RC clergy, it's a long time since I've been a member. It's a rhetorical question - do you have an opinion as to why they don't bother taking responsibility for their flock?

And were your children indoctrinated or excluded? You don't seem too bothered about either.

MadsL

I taught such a course in the UK in 1991 at faith ethos school. Has it seriously taken 24 years for such a leap forward in Irish education to be seriously considered. The idea of NOT teaching such a course in preference to catholic dogma is nothing short of scandalous. It is almost impossible to function intelligently in modern society without some understanding of world religions.

The sooner this happens the better, it is well overdue.

hinault

MadsL wrote: »

The sooner this happens the better

Why?

katydid

MadsL wrote: »

I taught such a course in the UK in 1991 at faith ethos school. Has it seriously taken 24 years for such a leap forward in Irish education to be seriously considered. The idea of NOT teaching such a course in preference to catholic dogma is nothing short of scandalous. It is almost impossible to function intelligently in modern society without some understanding of world religions.

The sooner this happens the better, it is well overdue.

Yes, but the problem is they are leaving the indoctrination in place and taking time out of the rest of the curriculum to fit this in. Bad idea.

MadsL

hinault wrote: »

Why?

Read my post.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

No one here tried to claim that the cases of abuse excused anything.

Your inability to comprehend remains undimmed.

Well why did he bring it up and add the clanger about "exaggeration"?

Nick Park

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well why did he bring it up and add the clanger about "exaggeration"?

I think it was you brought it up in post number 22.

Nick Park

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I couldn't care less about the nuns and the brothers educating us, that doesn't excuse the abuse and the subsequent cover-up.

Your point about abuse being "exaggerated" really helped your mask to slip.

So you don't care about Catholic education, but you're posting in a thread that is all about Catholic education rather than in the Clerical Child Abuse thread?

In other words, you're just trying to drag the thread off-topic?

Cabaal

steamengine wrote: »

The thing about it is though, does atheism not fall into a specific religious category also, even if it is a negative belief system, and should the same not apply ? Atheists should be free to run and fund their schools also, or get state support just like the religious schools.

So not having a belief is a religion now?
Does not following football make you a football fan too?

First thing first is there are no "atheist schools" nobody is looking for one either. Its just more reasonable to have schools that don't push any one faith above another and leave religion upto the parents and priests etc. As I've said before religion is a very personal thing, parents should be very very involved in it....at present the vast majority have next to no involvement except for some dress up days.

Cabaal

toptom wrote: »

Nonsense idea we're a catholic country

Are we now?
Majority who voted in May voted against the very strong held views of the Vatican and catholic church in Ireland.

Clearly this shows your view does actually follow through.

If we were a catholic country we'd agree with the church...as good Catholics.
:rolleyes:

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

So not having a belief is a religion now?
Does not following football make you a football fan too?

Not following football can be a simple absence from following the game.

Then again, what if someone turns their antipathy to football into a cause or crusade? For example, if they were to regularly to post in the Soccer Forum of boards.ie to argue with football fans? Or even get boards.ie to set up a 'Not Following Football' Forum (in the Sports Category)? In that case you're talking about something a bit different - the 'not following football' has itself turned into a fandom that is just as strong as the passion of a football fan.

Lots of people are atheists in the sense that they don't believe in God and get on with their lives. Certainly, for them, atheism is not a religion.

But for those who want to evangelise others with their atheism, they do bear many of the hallmarks of a religion. And, as history has shown us, when those kind of people get the reins of power they tend to be very quick to set up atheist schools, and to force everybody else to attend them.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

Are we now?
Majority who voted in May voted against the very strong held views of the Vatican and catholic church in Ireland.

Clearly this shows your view does actually follow through.

If we were a catholic country we'd agree with the church...as good Catholics.
:rolleyes:

Not necessarily. Plenty of people think you can be Catholic and disagree with the Church.

When it comes to education, it is irrelevant whether the majority of the people in the country are Catholic or not. The majority of people in Utah are Mormons, but that doesn't mean that the State should subsidise the teaching of Mormonism in public schools.

I don't think most people in Ireland, Catholic or otherwise, want to live in a theocracy. We want to live in a democracy where all are free to follow their beliefs without coercion or State interference. The best way for that to work in education is to have religiously neutral schools funded by the taxpayer.

Parents are free to instruct their children in religion, and there are plenty of churches to help them do so.

And if parents really want their child to attend a school that teaches one religious viewpoint, then that's grand - just so long as they're prepared to pay for it themselves.

Just as an aside, I paid for my child to go to a private school. Not because I was wealthy (which I was not), nor because I particularly wanted her to be indoctrinated in my own religion, but because I did not want the Catholic Church to have any role or influence in my child's life.

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

Lots of people are atheists in the sense that they don't believe in God and get on with their lives. Certainly, for them, atheism is not a religion.

But for those who want to evangelise others with their atheism, they do bear many of the hallmarks of a religion. And, as history has shown us, when those kind of people get the reins of power they tend to be very quick to set up atheist schools, and to force everybody else to attend them.

What some people call evangelism others would call just looking for equal rights, (though I'm not saying you are suggesting this to be fair).

I will say it is a little amusing that your commenting on atheist schools when the reality in Ireland is parents have no real choice. Catholic schools have been setup in Ireland and effectively everyone is forced to attend them unless they have resources, time and money to home school (DOE don't like this), setup another school (seriously hard work and can take years), drive to a non catholic school (assumes they have the time, money and transport to do so and there is one within say 30miles).

I'm an atheist but I certainly don't demand others should become atheists, if somebody finds that a religion helps them get through life then by all means belief in whatever works.

I have no issue with somebody believing in a religion, my only issue comes from when their belief infringes on the rights of others.

Marriage equality, catholic ethos schools and other issues are good examples of this.

Yes I understand that the catholic church doesn't agree with marriage equality, thats fine, they can do this. But don't try and stop marriage equality for state marriages. Marriage equality has zero affect on a catholic church wedding. A catholic wedding has not been devalued one bit by marriage equality.

Catholic ethos schools, I understand the catholic church wants to push its one faith. Thats fine, they can do this. But its wrong that its done at the tax payers expense and that it discriminates against non Catholics by refusing them school places and ensuring that non catholics have 10% of primary school time effectively wasted.

In some cases parents have been told there is no way to for their kid to be supervise during this 10% time and that the parent must make arrangements for their child during this time. This is frankly insane.

Schools should be welcoming and inclusive for all faiths and none when they are tax payer funded.

If we had a system with tax payer hospitals that refused entry to black people, women or travelers claiming they need to give priority to others there would be uproar and rightly so. But a school can discriminate against a 5 year old...thats just fine and dandy

I don't think most people in Ireland, Catholic or otherwise, want to live in a theocracy. We want to live in a democracy where all are free to follow their beliefs without coercion or State interference. The best way for that to work in education is to have religiously neutral schools funded by the taxpayer.

Parents are free to instruct their children in religion, and there are plenty of churches to help them do so.

And if parents really want their child to attend a school that teaches one religious viewpoint, then that's grand - just so long as they're prepared to pay for it themselves.

Just as an aside, I paid for my child to go to a private school. Not because I was wealthy (which I was not), nor because I particularly wanted her to be indoctrinated in my own religion, but because I did not want the Catholic Church to have any role or influence in my child's life.

I fully agree with you here Nick, its actually interesting and refreshing to see a religious person agree with the whole tax payer funded schools shouldn't push one faith.

So often in the other forum we see many religious people claim they can do what they want with a catholic ethos school and this should never change. But all the time they forget that we're dealing with children here and allowing children to be excluded.