What to tell kids when they ask?

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

We live in an area with an ET school but still can't count on getting a place. The other schools all discriminate on religious grounds and the indoctrination elements are extremely concerning. How......cruel it is to suggest our children should be at a disadvantage because of their lack of religious beliefs in the provision of essential state services.

It's not cruel at all. If parents don't want to send their children to religious ethos schools, they don't have to. By that same token, the school should not have to provide a service to parents who do not support the school's ethos. That would put the other children at a disadvantage.

If the schools were directly run by the State, then you would have legitimate grounds to claim discrimination if your child were refused a place in a school run by the State with no religious ethos.

Should hospitals also only treat those of the "right" faith first?

I don't see the relationship between hospitals and schools? Are people refusing treatment for fear of being indoctrinated in hospitals? If they choose to exclude themselves from hospitals, they can hardly claim they're being discriminated against.

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not cruel at all. If parents don't want to send their children to religious ethos schools, they don't have to. By that same token, the school should not have to provide a service to parents who do not support the school's ethos. That would put the other children at a disadvantage.

How does running a school in an inclusive manner "put other children at a disadvantage"? How does inviting ALL students and parents to the tea/cakes social after the communion/confirmation put other children at a disadvantage?

Huntergonzo

DK man wrote: »

Religious orders own most of the schools that's why they have such a say - our money is also my money and many other catholic parents and the majority of Irish parents. Our money is also used to pay for and build et schools and I have no problem with that and our money is also used for other things I don't necessarily subscribe to but that's life. In the area where the church offered over schools for divestment there was Local uproar. The church is willing and wants to give away a portion of their schools but they are having problems getting takers.

This our money is a load of nonesence -

Do they own them? I mean I'm sure they own some of the older ones but did they actually fork out the money to build new schools or was that tax payer money, and if so did the state just hand over these new buildings as a gift? Exactly what is the situation? Who's name is on the title?

The state has no business promoting one religion or none, I wouldn't have a problem with our money going towards secular schools because they don't take sides.

I'm extremely dubious of the church wanting to give away much control over the public education system, it's the only real way they can continue to recruit new catholic. Giving up the education system isn't in their interests at all.

Who's money is it then? Have we no right to question how it's spent? Just hand it over and stay quiet, is that the way forward?

melissak

Just read in the paper that fee paying schools are subsidised too. I wouldn't mind the likes of the Steiner schools as they are not overly expensive and are largely funded by fundraising by parents who like the ethos and scrape together the extra money for the fees as it is important to them. But the high priced elitist schools should get no funding. If it is that important to you not to send your child to school near poor people pay for it yourself. The whole system needs an overhaul. Certain interests are getting a free ride at the expense of others.

melissak

RainyDay wrote: »

How does running a school in an inclusive manner "put other children at a disadvantage"? How does inviting ALL students and parents to the tea/cakes social after the communion/confirmation put other children at a disadvantage?

It doesn't at all. Most Catholic schools do in fairness. My friends school had the non catholic kids sing in the coir for communion s if they wanted to participate. They could dress up or not as they liked. It was nice i thought to give them the option.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

How does running a school in an inclusive manner "put other children at a disadvantage"? How does inviting ALL students and parents to the tea/cakes social after the communion/confirmation put other children at a disadvantage?

See, this is the reason why people will never be a threat to the current status quo - you're still on about not being invited to tea and biscuits, while at the same time you're complaining that you have to take an hour off work and all the rest of it, all about you and your time and everything has to suit you.

Meanwhile, this is a national issue, and you're complaining about tea and biscuits. This is why I rarely comment on individual circumstances, because I can understand where they're coming from, but I don't want to point out that they come across as only interested in themselves and their needs.

The OP at least doesn't want his child going into school telling the other children they're wrong, but the thing is, they're not going to be able to stop their child letting that cat out of the bag either. If parents want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos, that is their prerogative. If parents want to exclude their children from religious indoctrination/faith formation (whatever), that again is their prerogative.

If the school supports the parents wishes, then it's a bit rich to complain that the school isn't being inclusive when the parents want their children excluded! If you want to organise a social gathering for parents, then you should talk to the other parents and not try and make that the schools responsibility.

One eyed Jack

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'm extremely dubious of the church wanting to give away much control over the public education system, it's the only real way they can continue to recruit new catholic. Giving up the education system isn't in their interests at all.

No it's not. They continue to "recruit" new members of the Roman Catholic Church through parents choosing to have their children baptised. The parents then decide to send their children to schools where their children are indoctrinated. That's the parents choice. The RCC aren't going to give up education as long as there are parents who want that type of education for their children, so going after the RCC is just silly when it's the parents you should be targeting in order to get them to support a change in the education system.

The RCC isn't going to close down schools while they're still full of children, and the State has a duty to provide for those children's education. That means that they have to fund the education of those children, no matter who is providing the service as long as they meet the criteria for school patronage. If the State withdrew funding for RCC ethos schools, they would also have to withdraw funding from ET and Gaelscoileanna.

eviltwin

There are plenty of Catholic children in our ET who manage to get their religious education and sacrament preparation without it discriminating against other faiths or taking over the school day. The kids stay behind just as kids stay behind for sport, drama etc. It's possible to have a non religious school day while still providing religious children with what they need, it's happening already. There is nothing that will ever convince me that it's a good idea to segregate children according to religious beliefs.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not. They continue to "recruit" new members of the Roman Catholic Church through parents choosing to have their children baptised. The parents then decide to send their children to schools where their children are indoctrinated. That's the parents choice. The RCC aren't going to give up education as long as there are parents who want that type of education for their children, so going after the RCC is just silly when it's the parents you should be targeting in order to get them to support a change in the education system.

The RCC isn't going to close down schools while they're still full of children, and the State has a duty to provide for those children's education. That means that they have to fund the education of those children, no matter who is providing the service as long as they meet the criteria for school patronage. If the State withdrew funding for RCC ethos schools, they would also have to withdraw funding from ET and Gaelscoileanna.

It's only a choice if you have options and as you know many parents don't have an alternative to a Catholic school

Huntergonzo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not. They continue to "recruit" new members of the Roman Catholic Church through parents choosing to have their children baptised. The parents then decide to send their children to schools where their children are indoctrinated. That's the parents choice. The RCC aren't going to give up education as long as there are parents who want that type of education for their children, so going after the RCC is just silly when it's the parents you should be targeting in order to get them to support a change in the education system.

Ah yes the parents, the parents who were once children themselves and the majority of which were also baptised (without their consent) and sent to catholic schools, like their parents before them and their grandparents etc etc etc notice a patern? This is how the recruitment process works, but deny it all you wish.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The RCC isn't going to close down schools while they're still full of children, and the State has a duty to provide for those children's education. That means that they have to fund the education of those children, no matter who is providing the service as long as they meet the criteria for school patronage. If the State withdrew funding for RCC ethos schools, they would also have to withdraw funding from ET and Gaelscoileanna.

The state does have a duty to provide for childrens education, but they have no business funding the RCC to run the schools so they can indoctrinate children with unprovable faith based catholic dogma. Give children the proper tools to make up the own minds, not teach them that they're 'catholics' up to the age of 18 and then flippantly say 'well now you can make your own mind up', it's complete bullshít.

Ps, who actually owns these schools, does anybody have a clear answer as to who pays for these buildings and who actually legally owns the buildings?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

It's only a choice if you have options and as you know many parents don't have an alternative to a Catholic school

Ok, I'll admit it's unreasonable to expect parents to go to extreme lengths to avail of education for their children (homeschooling is pants IMO, but it's becoming quite popular with parents who want individual attention for their children), but it's just as unreasonable IMO, to expect other parents who send their children to that type of school which provides that type of education that they want for their children, to expect them to send their children to a different type of school which would appear to be supported by a minority of parents.

You'd just be creating the opposite problem - parents who don't want to send their children to non-denom State schools, complaining that they have no reasonable alternatives if they want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos.

Somehow I doubt over-subscription would ever be a problem for State schools though, they have a massive PR problem with the perception that the education they provide (even though they provide the same educational curriculum as religious ethos schools), isn't the type of education many parents want for their children.

If I were the OP, I wouldn't be afraid of my child being exposed to new ideas coming from other sources. If the argument is for inclusion, then that requires that they not exclude their children. Are people that afraid that their children can't think for themselves that they have to protect them from ideas which they as parents don't agree with? How is that any different from the segregation they argue against? I've heard children in the playground slagging each other saying "You're an atheist!", and it's wrong, but they're picking it up from someone, and it's usually the parents.

The way the OP and other posters have gone on here, do they not expect that their children aren't picking up on their ideas about people who identify as religious? They're perpetuating discrimination themselves while blaming other people for discrimination against them! Religion or absence thereof, is just another way for people to argue for their "safe spaces" for communities of people who share their ideas, to promote their ideas at the exclusion of other people. You can't have an equal education system when people want to differentiate themselves from other people. At that stage it might be best for those people to homeschool their children, because they're never going to be able to protect their children from ideas they don't like coming from other people.

looksee

I have given up trying to separate the three different schools threads. This is nothing to do with 'what to tell the kids' however.

The religious side of the discussion are flatly refusing to acknowledge that there are two different situations. The (various) churches built some schools, at a time when RC schools were fee-paying. Obviously they were Catholic ethos as they were Catholic schools, and as Mary has frequently pointed out, parents sent their children there because there was a hope for exclusivity - the poor kids went to the National schools. I for one have no issue with these schools retaining an RC ethos - and if there are not enough schools in an area where the RC schools are the only schools available, then yes, the state should provide alternative buildings.

These 'private schools' have long been maintained and developed by the state, and teachers paid by the state. At a time when there were members of orders teaching in the schools I believe their salaries were recycled back into the school to some extent, they were still paid by the state.

The other form of school was the National school. These were built, maintained, and subsequently re-built by the state - originally pre-independence. All funding came from the state (and a certain amount from parents in a voluntary capacity). In a some cases land might have been donated, but at the time it was being donated for a school, not to the church. Once Independence was achieved the new government gave over a great deal of authority to the RC church in the constitution, and in practical matters such as education. The National schools were handed over, the vast majority to the RC church, others to other denominations. I have been unable to establish whether the actual property was legally handed over, though I have asked the Minister's office.

These are the schools for which the church (of any shade) has no actual input, beyond saying what the ethos will be. They have at all times been state run and paid for. There is no reason why any religious body should have any authority in them.

One eyed Jack

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ah yes the parents, the parents who were once children themselves and the majority of which were also baptised (without their consent) and sent to catholic schools, like their parents before them and their grandparents etc etc etc notice a patern? This is how the recruitment process works, but deny it all you wish.

Why would I deny it when according to all the evidence presented, the recruitment process isn't working? How many times have other posters pointed out that parents only send their children to religious ethos schools only because there is no alternative? How many adults went to religious ethos schools as children, who you would now claim are actually really non-religious?

How many people here were educated in religious institutions who now no longer identify as religious? Piss poor recruitment process if you ask me tbh. If anything, it's been evidenced since the mid-90's that people are abandoning the RCC in their droves!

The state does have a duty to provide for childrens education, but they have no business funding the RCC to run the schools so they can indoctrinate children with unprovable faith based catholic dogma. Give children the proper tools to make up the own minds, not teach them that they're 'catholics' up to the age of 18 and then flippantly say 'well now you can make your own mind up', it's complete bullshít.

You'll have to talk to parents about that one, as they are usually the legal guardians of their children until their children are 18 years of age, so they make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of their children, and sometimes, well, what you feel are in their children's best interests, are irrelevant.

I don't believe in starving children, but my child's friends observe Ramadan because that's what their parents feel is in their children's best interests. I don't think it's necessary for me to interfere with how those parents choose to raise their children in their own community. My child often heads to Mosque with them and I don't have a problem with this, because he's learning about other people, cultures and religions through experience, and not just what he sees as suicide bombers on television.

Ps, who actually owns these schools, does anybody have a clear answer as to who pays for these buildings and who actually legally owns the buildings?

The RCC owns most of them, and they are entitled to certain grants from the State for some things, and they have to apply for grants for other things, but the administration of the schools are done through the diocesan offices in the parish. Off the top of my head, if the patron covers 5% of the costs of a new school, they are appointed to manage the school (wouldn't quote me on that though, there's more to it and it's not actually as simple as that).

The State simply doesn't have the resources to manage schools and so they're investigating options that would mean schools would be managed at local level with the participation of the community and parents, but that'll just lead to yet another report that Government won't act on that'll gather dust in some office somewhere.

Turtwig

Mod: There are currently 19 off topic posts since the first warning in this thread. I'm still debating whether to just delete these as it's quite clear that moving them to the school megathread isn't really an option. In any case, any further off topic posts will be deleted of that you can be certain.

looksee

Where is the school megathread?

Turtwig

looksee wrote: »

Where is the school megathread?

This big guy.

It doesn't have the official title of megathread though. My bad there. Perhaps, it's time we baptised it?

looksee

Oh right. Nah, it doesn't matter to me, I have had it with this discussion (in all three threads).

I have been told what I think, what I believe, what I want, what my politics and social attitudes are and despite having tried to explain the atheist (or at least my atheist) position - in the A&A forum, I am assured by other people that I want atheist ethos schools etc and to get rid of religion out of schools, that 'most people' want religious schools and I should go off and build my own.

It is not a discussion it is a few people endlessly repeating a mantra that honestly sounds a lot like trolling.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Oh right. Nah, it doesn't matter to me, I have had it with this discussion.

I have been told what I think, what I believe, what I want, what my politics and social attitudes are and despite having tried to explain the atheist (or at least my atheist) position - in the A&A forum, I am assured by other people that I want atheist ethos schools etc and to get rid of education out of schools, that 'most people' want religious schools and I should go off and build my own.

It is not a discussion it is a few people endlessly repeating a mantra that honestly sounds a lot like trolling.

Tbh though looksee, if you'll forgive the crudeness of the expression - is it not simply a case of 'two cheeks of the same arse'?

I didn't want to contribute to this thread after repeatedly trying to correct some posters misinformation, misunderstanding, moving goalposts, and just outright trying to get a rise out of people.

I'm able to entertain robust discussion, and it's one of the things I like about this forum, but I do wonder, perhaps this is a suggestion for the feedback thread - would it be more beneficial to posters like the OP to move specific scenarios to the Parenting forum, or the Primary and pre school forum?

I'm only suggesting this as the issue of secular education and patronage is bigger than individual scenarios, and in every thread that presents an individual's scenario, it inevitably evolves into a discussion about secularism and patronage, and we go over the same old ground again and again.

I think your thread is different enough to the main school patronage thread as yours is more concerned with how to go about achieving a secular education system / equality in education, whereas the other patronage thread seems to be just updates with the latest progress (or lack thereof), and discussing the updates.

The Bishop Basher

I think we all agree that we want change and it needs to start somewhere.

I also think it hasn't been the best debate from both sides in spots.

I'm not proud of a couple of my posts and i'm not afraid to admit that.

But it's so important that we have these discussions because if we want it changed then it's up to us to change it and the real onus, to be fair, is on the atheist community as they are currently the most disenfranchised of everyone.

We all want fairness and we just have to work together to achieve it.

Huntergonzo

@ One eyed Jack

Just to let you know I posted a detailed reply to your last post but it got deleted because it came after the warning which is fair enough (I started the reply before the warning was posted, so I didn't see it in time), but thanks for the response anyway.

Shrap

Turtwig wrote: »

This big guy.

It doesn't have the official title of megathread though. My bad there. Perhaps, it's time we baptised it?

Excommunicating it might be the kinder option in this forum. Ye can baptise it in the Christianity forum if they start a thread there, eh?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I don't want to get technical, and say we're all star dust, etc

Why ever not One of the real joys of being a parent I have found is answering their questions. And I love it because kids can ask questions in ways you never would have, or even better ask questions you never would have asked at all.

And it is a great motivator to get up and get the answers, learn them yourself, and then formulate them in a way amenable to their age. It is challenging, stimulating, educational and at just about every level wonderful. I can only recommend it.

And if your child ends up fully infected with a religious meme disease when it is older, telling you with an earnest face to repent or that god impregnated a virgin in order to give birth to itself, or that bits of cracker bread can be infected with the spirit of the creator of the universe if you say the right latin words to it..... or whatever other unsubstantiated and stultifying nonsense the likes of One Eyed Jack subscribe to as true.... is there a risk you may look back and regret not answering those questions to the full extent of your ability at the time?

Of course you might do so and they STILL get fully infected with the religious meme disease, but at least then there is little risk of regret on your part.

As for what I tell children when they ask me about god belief I have a simple answer to that which I have seen repeated by a couple of other users around the forum so I am glad to see it caught on, even a little.

But I find children enjoy imagination and getting lost in imagination. And I find too that they do so while never really losing sight of the border between the imaginary and the real. In fact in play with my daughter (now 5) sometimes I get so lost in the game it is HER not me that says "Don't forget this is all pretend!!".

So when asked about god belief I just answer "Well do you know how when you really imagine something it can seem really really real sometimes?" to which children, almost invariably, will say yes, "Well, sometimes some people forget what they imagine actually is not real".

And I find children _really_ get that and it can be quite a simple 30 second inoculation against infection that I would like to hope works more often than not.

As a few users on the thread have likely told you (I have not read the whole thing from one end to the other due to obsessive off topc drivel) it is not that easy to opt young children out of religion. They might have opted your child out of one certain module called "religion" or something and let them go off coloring in a corner or what not.... but with the "Integrated curriculum" the teaching about religion and god permeates much of the rest of the day too. So opting the child out is, pretty much, ineffectual.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

... the likes of One Eyed Jack...

Charming... :pac: