is a catholic school monoply still dangerous..

boredusername1

This has been suggested for a long time now. Also children should be allowed attend their closest school regardless...

-Should their be state run schools, not religious run schools

Huntergonzo

I think it's always been dangerous, our school system is a total disgrace in fairness, public money should never go towards promoting any religion or none and that's exactly what goes on in over 90% of our publicly funded primary schools.

People are fully entitled to believe what they want and should be free to practise their religion if they wish but teaching children ancient unproven and unprovable stories as literal fact and ignoring genuine scientific facts is totally wrong in my view.

We need secular public schools in this country without delay.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

boredusername1 wrote: »

This has been suggested for a long time now. Also children should be allowed attend their closest school regardless...

-Should there be state run schools, not religious run schools

It's not really a monopoly (although might as well be in some areas).

Children should be allowed to attend the nearest state-funded school of their choice.

Private schools, Catholic or otherwise, can teach as they wish within syallabus guidelines.

boredusername1

is a baptised child selected ahead of a non-baptised child in a catholic school, despite state funding;in a society that is supposedly equal....

boredusername1

yes this is an issue that pops its head up in the media from time to time but never actually addressed fully in society or by government. Given the history of certain organisations and their failure to be properly held to account for various actions, it is quite nonsensical that state funds are still driven into these schools.

Will we be the generation that suffered collective amnesia regarding certain institutions and allow their influence to continue and brushed under the carpet.

A quota (with a limit) of denomination run schools is fine for those who wish, but yes I agree the majority, free access and funds should be put into secular run schools for our country to deal with our past and move forward in the right direction

Delirium

MOD NOTE

@boredusername1: I've merged your duplicate threads into a single discussion thread.

Please don't create any more threads on this topic.

Mrs OBumble

boredusername1 wrote: »

Also children should be allowed attend their closest school regardless...

Why?

What about if the closest school is already full?

BoJack Horseman

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's not really a monopoly (although might as well be in some areas)

97% of primary schools isn't it?

Private schools, Catholic or otherwise, can teach as they wish within syallabus guidelines.

I've never heard of any primary school not receiving taxpayer funding.

eviltwin

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why?

What about if the closest school is already full?

Do you not think it's better all round if local schools are populated with kids from the local area?

lazybones32

Huntergonzo wrote: »

...and ignoring genuine scientific facts is totally wrong in my view.

Ignoring genuine scientific facts such as?...

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you not think it's better all round if local schools are populated with kids from the local area?

A local school can be filled to capacity by local kids and still not meet demand. What then? Should the locals who couldn't gain access be discriminated against in the next-nearest school in favour of the kids from that location?

Manach

Repeated rhetoric railings aside, it is about retaining a distinct culture identity and traditional for the Catholic parents who wish to bring up their children within the faith community that has built on a long lasting generational ethos.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

A local school can be filled to capacity by local kids and still not meet demand. What then? Should the locals who couldn't gain access be discriminated against in the next-nearest school in favour of the kids from that location?

That's always going to be an issue but it's not really relevant to what we are discussing.

lazybones32

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why?

What about if the closest school is already full?

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you not think it's better all round if local schools are populated with kids from the local area?

eviltwin wrote: »

That's always going to be an issue but it's not really relevant to what we are discussing.

It is directly related to what is being discussed. What if the local school is full before all the local children have a place at the nearest school?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

97% of primary schools isn't it?

I;d be surprised if the number was that high, to be honest, but I wouldn't dispute it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Manach wrote: »

Repeated rhetoric railings aside, it is about retaining a distinct culture identity and traditional for the Catholic parents who wish to bring up their children within the faith community that has built on a long lasting generational ethos.

Which is fine - if the school is funded by the Catholic Church. But why chould non-catholic taxpayers be discriminated against?

Manach

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which is fine - if the school is funded by the Catholic Church. But why chould non-catholic taxpayers be discriminated against?

Discrimination, oh noes, Discrimination :rolleyes:
Taxes 101 : by their very nature is an enforcement payment that is doled out by the state for the benefit of a variety of stakeholders. Some times a small percentage returns back to the taxpayer, but to believe the money is distributed evenly is naive.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Manach wrote: »

Discrimination, oh noes, Discrimination :rolleyes:
Taxes 101 : by their very nature is an enforcement payment that is doled out by the state for the benefit of a variety of stakeholders. Some times a small percentage returns back to the taxpayer, but to believe the money is distributed evenly is naive.

Discrimination 101: treatment in favor of or against a person based on categorisation rather than on merit.

Taxes are paid by a citizen to the state for the upkeep of services that said citizen should be able to avail should they need to do so without requiring permission from a third party. Distribution is irrelevant; need is relvant.

robindch

Manach wrote: »

Repeated rhetoric railings aside, it is about retaining a distinct culture identity and traditional for the Catholic parents who wish to bring up their children within the faith community that has built on a long lasting generational ethos.

Something of a impenetrable rhetorical railing itself, I have to say.

No, the control of schools in this country by unelected and unaccountable religious organizations - particularly the RCC with its lamentable childcare record - is an open dereliction by the state of its responsibilty to educate everybody, and not just members of whichever religious club happens to control access to the local school.

Whether they admit it or not, religious organizations control access to state-funded schools for their own benefit - by forcing people to pretend to be religious, and perhaps even be religious, purely so that they don't suffer social ostracism or have their children denied an education. And that's quite apart from the crazy number of school time spent trying to convince trusting, innocent children to believe the most ridiculous religious stories - some of whom do end up believing them, thereby ensuring the continuity of the religion into the following generation.

boredusername1

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I;d be surprised if the number was that high, to be honest, but I wouldn't dispute it.

''The vast majority (96%) of primary schools in Ireland are owned and under the patronage of religious denominations and approximately 90% of these schools are owned and under the patronage of the Catholic Church''.

(from education.ie website) approximate figures but significant if the dept. of education is stating this.

boredusername1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why?

What about if the closest school is already full?

my sentence wasn't fully clear perhaps. Regardless...of religious background, yes ideally schools should be filled with children from that locality or on a first come first serve, but should not be refused on religious grounds. Governments should ensure that each area has enough non-religious schools to serve the population, as this does not always seem to be the case.

boredusername1

lazybones32 wrote: »

It is directly related to what is being discussed. What if the local school is full before all the local children have a place at the nearest school?

Governments should ensure that each community has enough schools per population cluster. If the school is still full to capacity, fair enough, children though should not be refused on religious grounds if the school is funded by taxpayer money. The family should not have to pretend to be religious either to gain access or improve chances. This of course is a problem until the percentage or religious and non-denominational school provision and funding is more equally distributed

boredusername1

lazybones32 wrote: »

It is directly related to what is being discussed. What if the local school is full before all the local children have a place at the nearest school?

Governments should ensure that each community has enough schools per population cluster. If the school is still full to capacity, fair enough. Children though should not be refused on religious grounds if the school is funded by taxpayer money. The family should not have to pretend to be religious either to gain access or improve chances. This of course is a problem until the percentage of religious and non-denominational school provision and funding is more equally distributed

Huntergonzo

lazybones32 wrote: »

Ignoring genuine scientific facts such as?...

They teach children that the reason why they are there is because of God, specifically the catholic God and the creation story (and until it's verified then it's nothing more than a story) that goes with it. Now this is blatantly lying to children about an extremely important topic because the answer to exactly why we're here is unknown and I think it would be far better to inspire generations of young children to go find the answer rather than reduce it to the vague, unverified and bland answer of 'God did it'.

Specifically, evolution is largely ignored in our public primary schools.

Kiwi in IE

It's hard to understand how anyone, even religious people can support the current system. Parents whose children are of other religions and none cannot really withdraw our children as we are often told that 'religion permeates the school day', therefore our only option is to counteract. At some point a child like mine will begin to question the teacher, point out inconsistencies and hypocrisies and the teacher won't have the answers.

My seven year old told me the other day that when the teacher was talking about God having made the world, he wanted to ask "Is that really true or is it a load of rubbish?". I told him that if he felt like asking questions, then to go ahead but leave out the 'load of rubbish'. He might not yet feel confident enough to question in class, but being the type of child he is, I doubt it will be long, and if he feels he wants to, I will encourage it.

Many teachers are in a similar position, having to teach religion despite being non religious because of the RCC monopoly on state funded schools, and therefore might not respond to a questioning child of atheist parents the way a religious person would like/hope. They may even agree with the questioning child, and despite being unable to say that, there are other ways than verbal to show agreement. They may have no religious background themselves and may not be able/willing to answer a impossible question that challenges doctrine with the party line.

I have/will be discussing religion at home frequently to counteract school indoctrination. I have discovered that we are not the only family in the school where the adults are atheist, so he won't be the only child questioning. Enough kids like mine in a class (and there will be far more in the future as the less religious younger generation become parents), because we have no reasonable alternative, and no one in charge of education can be bothered ensuring that those in our position are reasonably accommodated, also teachers who potentially have no interest in, or privately are opposed to indoctrinating children with religion, and it might become apparent to some children of religious parents that the house is made of cards, not bricks.

Mrs OBumble

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I have discovered that we are not the only family in the school where the adults are atheist, so he won't be the only child questioning. Enough kids like mine in a class (and there will be far more in the future as the less religious younger generation become parents), because we have no reasonable alternative, and no one in charge of education can be bothered ensuring that those in our position are reasonably accommodated,

Why don't you just get together and set up an ET school?



Re someone's earlier question about don't I think that it's best if local schools are populated by local children - no I don't. Schools develop specialities: sometime music or sport or religion of whatever. They should be free to accept children who will benefit from this speciallity, not forced to accept yokels with no interest. Also, sometimes it's better for kids to be in school close to their parent work rather than close to home - again impossible if they only can go to a local school.


I do agree that the state should be providing more non-religious schools - enough in each area to meet demand.

Atlantic Dawn

I think the state should not fund any school where religion is preached, if someone wants to base a school enrolement system on religion I have no problem at all with that once it's self financed. I also think it's wrong that someone non religious wants to get in to a school where a religion is preached but want's no involvement in that religion, so the tax payer financing is the real issue. I don't see why the catholic church or any church can't just run classes on a Saturday/Sunday to facilitate it instead.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Discrimination, oh noes, Discrimination :rolleyes:
Taxes 101 : by their very nature is an enforcement payment that is doled out by the state for the benefit of a variety of stakeholders. Some times a small percentage returns back to the taxpayer, but to believe the money is distributed evenly is naive.

This callous sneering wouldn't be out of place at a white supremacist rally against racial integration in schools in the Jim Crow Laws era. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that the Catholic Far-Right's iron grip on this state is rusting away.

smacl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why don't you just get together and set up an ET school?

If you're in a small community, having separate schools for each creed isn't feasible, yet every member of the community deserves equal rights to a local education. Having schools with a religious ethos in this situation is both unfair and discriminatory. In this situation it seems more reasonable that religious instruction should be extra-curricular.

Re someone's earlier question about don't I think that it's best if local schools are populated by local children - no I don't. Schools develop specialities: sometime music or sport or religion of whatever. They should be free to accept children who will benefit from this speciallity, not forced to accept yokels with no interest. Also, sometimes it's better for kids to be in school close to their parent work rather than close to home - again impossible if they only can go to a local school.

I'd strongly disagree with that. Children who attend the local school will have local friends and grow up as an intrinsic part of the local community. Children who travel longer distances to school are likely to have friends who aren't local, will be stuck needing parents to transport them to play-dates etc... This isn't good for either children, parents, or the community.

LordSutch

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I think the state should not fund any school where religion is preached, if someone wants to base a school enrolement system on religion I have no problem at all with that once it's self financed. I also think it's wrong that someone non religious wants to get in to a school where a religion is preached but want's no involvement in that religion, so the tax payer financing is the real issue. I don't see why the catholic church or any church can't just run classes on a Saturday/Sunday to facilitate it instead.

We have always had Sunday School in the Church of Ireland. Its really great fun and it pertains only to those children who attend that particular Church! Childrens biblical story telling, biblical colouring books, and anything to do with the Christian ethos of the Church involved. The adults can then get on with the serious business of worship while the kids are entertained in the hall.

As regards religion in Church of Ireland schools, a Christian ethos is gently encouraged, witout being specifically Protestant in nature.

smacl

LordSutch wrote: »

We have always had Sunday School in the Church of Ireland. Its really great fun and it pertains only to those children who attend that particular Church! Childrens biblical story telling, biblical colouring books, and anything to do with the Christian ethos of the Church involved. The adults can then get on with the serious business of worship while the kids are entertained in the hall.

T'would never work with the Catholic church, requiring as it would the bulk of the adult Catholics to regularly attend Sunday mass which they've long since lost the inclination to do.

lazybones32

boredusername1 wrote: »

Governments should ensure that each community has enough schools per population cluster. If the school is still full to capacity, fair enough, children though should not be refused on religious grounds if the school is funded by taxpayer money. The family should not have to pretend to be religious either to gain access or improve chances. This of course is a problem until the percentage or religious and non-denominational school provision and funding is more equally distributed

You've hit the nail on the head but maybe without realising it. It's the Govt.'s responsibility but at the time they ceded a lot of control to the RCC. If the Govt. really wanted to reclaim full control, they could. Do they want to?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

They teach children that the reason why they are there is because of God, specifically the catholic God and the creation story (and until it's verified then it's nothing more than a story) that goes with it. Now this is blatantly lying to children about an extremely important topic because the answer to exactly why we're here is unknown and I think it would be far better to inspire generations of young children to go find the answer rather than reduce it to the vague, unverified and bland answer of 'God did it'.

Specifically, evolution is largely ignored in our public primary schools.

The Dept. of Education and the Minister have responsibility for the curriculum (what is taught in schools) not the RCC.
Evolution isn't a Primary subject. It would fall under the umbrella of biology and I doubt anything beyond the basics of biology is taught at Primary level. Does that clarify anything for you?

Your bit about people who know the reason for existing being blatant liars is confusing: if there is a greater reason for humanity, it means we have purpose (who/what gives us this greater purpose?). Either there is a reason we exist or we are simply random products of evolution with no greater meaning or consequence. There either is a reason or there isn't.

looksee

Your bit about people who know the reason for existing being blatant liars is confusing: if there is a greater reason for humanity, it means we have purpose (who/what gives us this greater purpose?). Either there is a reason we exist or we are simply random products of evolution with no greater meaning or consequence. There either is a reason or there isn't.

This paragraph does not seem to make a lot of sense, but the bit I have bolded makes sense to me. Why should we be of consequence? We are only of consequence to ourselves.

looksee

duplicate

lazybones32

looksee wrote: »

This paragraph does not seem to make a lot of sense, but the bit I have bolded makes sense to me. Why should we be of consequence? We are only of consequence to ourselves.

OP says people who know the reason why humans exist are blatant liars (because we don't know exactly why we exist) and it is better to inspire children to go and find out for themselves why we exist. That's what I found confusing. If there is a reason for humanity existing, there is some specific function or role to fulfill. If we are solely products of evolution, there is no reason for humanity's existence and no need to send children looking for it.

We are of consequence because we are created in the image and likeness of God. Every life is precious to Him.

Huntergonzo

lazybones32 wrote: »

The Dept. of Education and the Minister have responsibility for the curriculum (what is taught in schools) not the RCC.
Evolution isn't a Primary subject. It would fall under the umbrella of biology and I doubt anything beyond the basics of biology is taught at Primary level. Does that clarify anything for you?

It doesn't really matter whether it's the state or the RCC who offically set the curriculum (they're both complicit in setting the curriculum as far as I'm concerned), there should be no religious discrimination in schools at all. So either teach all religions and and have a class which tells children there is no god or remain neutral on such matters teach only what is known.

In fairness evolution is a huge reason why we're here and far too important to ignore in the classroom and it doesn't need to be taught at an advanced level to young children. Anyway it can't be any more heavy than the catholic creation story and they teach that from a very young age.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Your bit about people who know the reason for existing being blatant liars is confusing: if there is a greater reason for humanity, it means we have purpose (who/what gives us this greater purpose?). Either there is a reason we exist or we are simply random products of evolution with no greater meaning or consequence. There either is a reason or there isn't.

I'm not sure exactly what's confusing you, all I'm saying is we humans don't know exactly how we got here (ie how life actually started in the first place) so why tell children fanciful stories about gods and burning bushes when we could just be honest with them and simply say 'we don't know'. That might actually inspire more people to go out and find the answer, which would be great.

cnocbui

Manach wrote: »

Repeated rhetoric railings aside, it is about retaining a distinct culture identity and traditional for the Catholic parents who wish to bring up their children within the faith community that has built on a long lasting generational ethos.

Steaming pile of dung.

If Catholic parents want to inculcate their kids with the same superstitious tripe they hold dear, they should be free to do so - in their own time and not at taxpayers expense.

The true evil in this abhorrent system is that it forces all teachers to be died in the wool catholics, or feign it, if they want to pursue that particular profession. I am astonished the Irish education system has avoided being hauled before a European court. The hiring practices for Irish teachers are amongst the most blatant examples of discrimination you could find anywhere. Salaries paid for by the state but selected by the local priest - are you kidding me?

The government should appropriate all school lands without compensation, disconnect the church and priests from schools and remove religious conformity as a selection criteria for teachers.

Oh - and for goodness sake, make Irish an optional subject. Torturing children was supposed to have died out in the Victorian era.

Huntergonzo

lazybones32 wrote: »

Oh, that is rich coming from you! First you said the RCC were preventing genuine scientific facts from being taught and when shown that 1) evolution isn't a primary subject and 2) the RCC don't control the curriculum, you ignore your wrong position and change the point to being that no religious discrimination should be allowed (because the Dept. of Ed and the RCC are in league). Have you gone full-retard or is this how you always are? Don't answer that, I don't want to know.

Well that's one of the most delusional and factually inaccurate posts I've ever read and I must have hit a deep nerve because you resorted to pretty pathetic name calling. If that's your last line of defense then I'm more than satisfied that we're done here, all the best.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Ineffability discussion moved to a new thread.

Please keep this thread to the topic, i.e. "is a catholic school monopoly still dangerous".

Thanks for your attention.