Separating Church & State , Why does it Matter ?

iguana

lazygal wrote: »

It is the least worst option for us. I feel children have a great capacity for seeing the positive and negative sides of things, including religion, and ET only does this sugar coated Learn Together programme because of the very religious nature of Irish education.

eta
link to programme
https://www.educatetogether.ie/about/learn-together
The phrase 'spiritual development' annoys me. My children don't have spirits that need development.

ET did what it had to due to the restrictive nature of Rule 68, which meant that a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school. Now that it's gone there is a new potential patron body, Secular Schools Ireland which has started applying for school patronage but which definitely won't be a possibility for my son. Where we live Steiner may also be an option but while I do like certain aspects of Steiner education, over all I find the negatives of Steiner schooling outweigh the positives.

silverharp

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't know. My youngest is only in senior infants. I'm not sure what it's like as they get older but I'd imagine its sugar coated as it is in a Catholic school. They've toned down how Catholicism is taught over the years. I can't imagine an ET is going to be any different.

my kids school is specifically a multi denominational school so it tends to be quite fluffy but my kids are primary as well. they don't have any text book for this type of subject so apart from squeezing information from a stone Ive no idea how these classes go. My kids have had a bit of fun over the years in their RE/ethics class as they had been fully prepped by moi with hours of Christian debunking videos so in an intelligent way they were able to fact check the teachers

lazygal

iguana wrote: »

ET did what it had to due to the restrictive nature of Rule 68, which meant that a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school. Now that it's gone there is a new potential patron body, Secular Schools Ireland which has started applying for school patronage but which definitely won't be a possibility for my son. Where we live Steiner may also be an option but while I do like certain aspects of Steiner education, over all I find the negatives of Steiner schooling outweigh the positives.

Or ET could give two fingers to the dept, like religious schools do, and decide on what is taught in its schools in terms of religion. There's zero need for it to comply with any religious rules now that 68 is gone so time for it to overhaul its curriculum.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

You know that the majority of country's ahead of Ireland don't have the same system when it comes to religious ethos right?

And plenty of the ones that come after don't either. But I'm not ascribing Irelands success in the surveys to religious ethos, I'm saying that for a country whose education system supposedly doesn't really work, it's doing a very credible job of educating.

Cabaal wrote: »

You posted Ireland's ranking to try and claim there was nothing wrong, but country's ahead of Ireland provide better education with no religious ethos pushed on children in state funded schools.

Nope. I posted it to show that for a country whose education system supposedly doesn't really work, it's doing a very credible job of educating.

Cabaal wrote: »

You seriously need to try harder here, as you undermine yourself with the link you posted.

I don't think so; I'm pretty sure the link I posted actually underlined my point that for a country whose education system supposedly doesn't really work, it's doing a very credible job of educating. Really, i don't think I need to try any harder at all.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a concept that I was mulling over setting up with a few friends a couple of years back, similar to the way charter schools work in the US. It can work very well, but it would be far more specifically targeted at a particular sector in the employment market than a public school.

Companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, Intel, business leaders and so on, would jump at the chance to get in on it. But the only problem as you point out would be that they as the patrons and sponsors would want to be getting something in return. It reminds me of the Tesco vouchers for schools program - the Principal in my child's school said the school wouldn't be participating as it encourages commercialism!

it depends on the quality, It would be an interesting alternative if these big tech companies made it a goal of their schools to focus on tech , science and maths. If my kids are anything to go by they are under taught following a generic curriculum . There should be competing curriculum to suit different kids. its a common criticism that intelligent kids don't get a great deal under current systems.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

it depends on the quality, It would be an interesting alternative if these big tech companies made it a goal of their schools to focus on tech , science and maths. If my kids are anything to go by they are under taught following a generic curriculum . There should be competing curriculum to suit different kids. its a common criticism that intelligent kids don't get a great deal under current systems.

You should if you get a chance, check out the CTYI programe -

Centre for Talented Youth, Ireland

Boards CTYI forum

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I had assumed the teacher held up the cover or showed it on an overhead, if something is being passed around sure it wouldn't be sensible to force a particular kid to look at it and the kid should be free to not handle it or what not.

You have indeed offered us quite a number of assumptions about what happened, and what people were doing. Maybe reading the accounts would have helped?

silverharp wrote: »

My main concern here is that teachers will become too cautious for fear of a backlash when presenting information. in a decade or 2 this period will become part of the history class and it should be presented as its to be presented.

So, you're no longer concerned about educational robustness, trigger warnings, stopping classes instead of excusing pupils? I suppose that's a relief anyways.

silverharp wrote: »

Look at it this way , why should the teacher have to understand the particular beliefs of each student in their class? everyone believes different things so I don't think a teacher needs to concern themselves with what might potentially offend someone.

How about... because they're their students, and they're responsible for their wellbeing as well as their education?

silverharp wrote: »

if a student gets wind of something that is going to offend them then they should talk to the teacher, if it seems reasonable then the kid should be accommodated in any practical way that doesn't impact everyone else. if they refuse to carry out a task or answer questions incorrectly that they are being graded on they should fail that part, this could be anything, evolution, cooking a pork dish in a home economics class, dissecting a fish in a science practical In this particular case though if the teacher made them look at the cover after they had given a reason of why they didn't want too then the teacher overstepped the mark. As a parent theoretically I'd like my kids to have the right of veto for themselves but to understand they might drop a grade and so be it.

So... the student should do what the student in this case actually did? Good to know the student did the right thing. However... in telling the student that it was part of the lesson, the teacher did not. Perhaps, with some thought to the beliefs and wellbeing of the student (remember the school chairman said they “respect all religions and none” in the school, and “would never set out to cause offence to anybody”.) the teacher might have excused the student, rather than telling them it was part of the lesson? Good to see your point of view coming around all the same

silverharp wrote: »

what fact? in a discussion about free speech , showing a cover of a magazine that got people killed is relevant

The facts as presented by the people present, as opposed to your presumptions about what the teacher was presenting, and the educational value of the cartoon itself. For instance, the fact that it wasn't that cover that got people killed that was shown around, it was the cover of a subsequent issue. And even if it had been, being relevant doesn't make it necessary, or appropriate.

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You should if you get a chance, check out the CTYI programe -

Centre for Talented Youth, Ireland

Boards CTYI forum

my son did some of them a few years ago, apart from being a logistical pain in the ass, a lot of the kids seem to be there because they werent happy in their own school and a lot of them werent the most social whereas junior is quite outgoing
I took the approach to teach them maths at home to their speed so I knew they had a challenge and then they go to things like coder dojo which they have enjoyed.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

You have indeed offered us quite a number of assumptions about what happened, and what people were doing. Maybe reading the accounts would have helped?
So, you're no longer concerned about educational robustness, trigger warnings, stopping classes instead of excusing pupils? I suppose that's a relief anyways.
How about... because they're their students, and they're responsible for their wellbeing as well as their education?
So... the student should do what the student in this case actually did? Good to know the student did the right thing. However... in telling the student that it was part of the lesson, the teacher did not. Perhaps, with some thought to the beliefs and wellbeing of the student (remember the school chairman said they “respect all religions and none” in the school, and “would never set out to cause offence to anybody”.) the teacher might have excused the student, rather than telling them it was part of the lesson? Good to see your point of view coming around all the same
The facts as presented by the people present, as opposed to your presumptions about what the teacher was presenting, and the educational value of the cartoon itself. For instance, the fact that it wasn't that cover that got people killed that was shown around, it was the cover of a subsequent issue. And even if it had been, being relevant doesn't make it necessary, or appropriate.

its not up to the teacher to find out every belief of every student. Even if she was aware that there were muslim raised children in her class this doesnt imply that they must not see particular images. its up to the students to pipe up.
you can deconstruct a lesson plan all you want but the Hebdo magazine can be relevant to a free speech discussion. the teacher did nothing wrong bringing any issue of the magazine into her class. if a teacher had done that in my kids class and they had let me know about it,I would have thought it was an interesting thing to have done, "necessary" is not a standard to measure this why would it be? and I cant think why it would be inappropriate unless it was violent or of a sexual nature

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

You know that the majority of country's ahead of Ireland don't have the same system when it comes to religious ethos right?

You posted Ireland's ranking to try and claim there was nothing wrong, but country's ahead of Ireland provide better education with no religious ethos pushed on children in state funded schools.

You seriously need to try harder here, as you undermine yourself with the link you posted.

We have an excellent education system in Ireland and rank very well considering we are a small island nation. The majority of people don't want the education to change only a small vocal minority who if they are not happy with the excellent education system and don't want the catholic teaching that most people want then they should come together to set up their own schools. They will be happy and the majority of us who want or children (or future children in my case) educated in catholic ethos schools will also be happier if catholic schools where only Catholics attend.

I have relations in the UK and people go to massive efforts to get into catholic schools because they are far superior to non-religious state schools and also only Catholics are allowed go there and this is very strictly enforced, being baptised is not enough you need to tick a lot of boxes to be even considered for being admitted and the better the school the stricter the entry rules.

You would get awful tired reading the constant whining and even worse the belittling and mocking of religious teaching in schools which is a very important part of a child's education to an awful lot of people and the last thing that's wanted is a change to our system.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

its not up to the teacher to find out every belief of every student. Even if she was aware that there were muslim raised children in her class this doesnt imply that they must not see particular images. its up to the students to pipe up.

It absolutely is the responsibility of the teacher to be aware of the beliefs of all the students in the class, particularly in an ET school where the core of their ethos is about respect for the spiritual and cultural beliefs of each student. If there are Muslim children in the class, then one of their fundamental beliefs centres around prohibition of the image of the prophet Muhammad. The students did pipe up, and according to their mother, were told by the teacher that it was part of the lesson. The teacher handled the situation badly is all.

you can deconstruct a lesson plan all you want but the Hebdo magazine can be relevant to a free speech discussion. the teacher did nothing wrong bringing any issue of the magazine into her class.

It wasn't included in any lesson plan though, it was actually one of the other students in the class who brought the magazine in, and showed it to the teacher, and the teacher decided to show it to the rest of the class. That's where the teacher made a bad call, and where it appears the ethos of the school was superseded by politics.

if a teacher had done that in my kids class and they had let me know about it,I would have thought it was an interesting thing to have done, "necessary" is not a standard to measure this why would it be? and I cant think why it would be inappropriate unless it was violent or of a sexual nature

The parents were only made aware of it though when the children came home from school that day. Necessary is a standard to measure it by because there were conflicting ideologies in play - the importance of respect for their students religious beliefs, or the importance of their own political beliefs. The teacher put their own political beliefs ahead of the students religious beliefs. To a Muslim, depictions of their prophet are inappropriate in the same way as violent or sexual imagery would be to you.

ET made the rules, which are fantastic in theory, but they don't hold up in practice if they are claiming to respect diversity and each student and their religious beliefs... so long as they jig with their own political beliefs!

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It absolutely is the responsibility of the teacher to be aware of the beliefs of all the students in the class, particularly in an ET school where the core of their ethos is about respect for the spiritual and cultural beliefs of each student. If there are Muslim children in the class, then one of their fundamental beliefs centres around prohibition of the image of the prophet Muhammad. The students did pipe up, and according to their mother, were told by the teacher that it was part of the lesson. The teacher handled the situation badly is all.

citation , I don't think its a fundamental belief , its not a prohibition in Shia Islam for instance and it wouldn't be uncommon to see in image of mohammed in an Iranian home. but I'll grant that if a student pipes up the student should be listened to. Its up to the school policy and Im more interested in what those policies ought to be? Ive no interest in seeing muslim kids's eyelids cellotaped back and forced to see something they don't want to.
My own view is that especially concerning Islam is that everyone leaving school either learns nothing about Islam or learns about Islam in a way that one can be critical of it much like schools teach about nazism or communism in history. Only teaching about official muslim practices or what their feast days are is intellectually meaningless.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't included in any lesson plan though, it was actually one of the other students in the class who brought the magazine in, and showed it to the teacher, and the teacher decided to show it to the rest of the class. That's where the teacher made a bad call, and where it appears the ethos of the school was superseded by politics.

if not likely to offend a religious minority in that school was an official rule then the teacher should stick to the rules, no quibble there but I'd like to think a school would be prepared to challenge or allow kids to challenge religious beliefs in class.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

ET made the rules, which are fantastic in theory, but they don't hold up in practice if they are claiming to respect diversity and each student and their beliefs... so long as they jig with their own!

whatever their rules are they should stick to them, society can question their rules. I don't think respecting diversity is a good thing as it can mean restricting other people's freedom, which in this day and age peeks my interest more.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

citation , I don't think its a fundamental belief , its not a prohibition in Shia Islam for instance and it wouldn't be uncommon to see in image of mohammed in an Iranian home. but I'll grant that if a student pipes up the student should be listened to. Its up to the school policy and Im more interested in what those policies ought to be? Ive no interest in seeing muslim kids's eyelids cellotaped back and forced to see something they don't want to.

Well ok, not a fundamental belief in that sense, but Muhammad is a venerated figure among Muslims, and they tend to view depictions like the cartoons as an attack on their Muslim identity. It's a bit like the way when I was back in school and there was a statue of Jesus in the school yard, we all came in one Monday morning and there was a condom hanging off the outstretched finger. We had to try pretend we were deeply offended. Most of us didn't even know what a condom was, and those of us who did were breaking our holes laughing :pac:

Terrible stuff altogether

My own view is that especially concerning Islam is that everyone leaving school either learns nothing about Islam or learns about Islam in a way that one can be critical of it much like schools teach about nazism or communism in history. Only teaching about official muslim practices or what their feast days are is intellectually meaningless.

I think the whole point of the ET philosophy isn't so much applying intellectual rigour to religions, but to celebrate and be respectful of the people who hold different beliefs, practice different traditions, and have different cultural values to their own. You couldn't go any further than scratching the surface without someone getting their knickers in a bunch.

if not likely to offend a religious minority in that school was an official rule then the teacher should stick to the rules, no quibble there but I'd like to think a school would be prepared to challenge or allow kids to challenge religious beliefs in class.

By their own standards, they can't. The whole mix of ideologies and trying to accommodate them all means they're not going to be stepping on anyone's toes, and nobody is offended, and they all get on great. That's the theory anyway. But the more diversity you allow for, the more likely there are to be teething problems with integration and showing respect to everyone within such a diverse group.

whatever their rules are they should stick to them, society can question their rules. I don't think respecting diversity is a good thing as it can mean restricting other people's freedom, which in this day and age peeks my interest more.

When ET was set up about 30 years back, the idea was to accommodate all faiths and none, and it was all fairly moderate stuff and it was easy for them to say they don't discriminate and all the rest of it. Now, in the age of identity politics and multiculturalism, they're beginning to realise that their idealism may have been a tad short-sighted.

Personally, I think showing respect for diversity and accommodating people is a good thing, there's plenty of room for everyone, but far too many people aren't prepared to give up anything and want everything their own way. That's no way for a society to function either.

realdanbreen

Walter H Price wrote: »

So my question is this , why does it personally mater to you that we see further separation of Church and State in Ireland ?

For me its about my kids , i don't want my children to have to be baptised into a religion neither me or their mother have any interest in just so they can go to a local school.

I don't want them to learn more about Jesus , Mohammed , Budda or any other fictional religious character in school then they learn about Science , Technology , history etc..

I don't want them to feel pressured like i did not from my parents or family but from teachers and classmates into making communion or confirmation.

And if for any reason my Fiance ,Sister , Daughter , Cousin or friend ever need to or wish to terminate a pregnancy for any reason, i would like them to be able to do so here with dignity and support instead of having to travel to England.

Those are my reasons , what are yours ?

You do know that making your first communion or confirmation is not compulsory, don't you?

Walter H Price

realdanbreen wrote: »

You do know that making your first communion or confirmation is not compulsory, don't you?

I do , I just disagree with the prep for it being done during class time , taking up time that could be used for real subjects like science or history and the fact that kids of different or no religion are kind of left to one side coloring or whatever while the majority of the class are doing the prep work.

As said in a previous pot one of my mates got his 8 year old baptised just before Christmas because she was being bullied in a way by the other kids for being the only one not making her communion, don't see the need for religious instruction in schools it has no real place , if parents really want their kids to do it i'm sure they can make time in the evening and a weekends to do any prep or go to any masses etc...

One eyed Jack

Walter H Price wrote: »

I do , I just disagree with the prep for it being done during class time , taking up time that could be used for real subjects like science or history and the fact that kids of different or no religion are kind of left to one side coloring or whatever while the majority of the class are doing the prep work.

As said in a previous pot one of my mates got his 8 year old baptised just before Christmas because she was being bullied in a way by the other kids for being the only one not making her communion, don't see the need for religious instruction in schools it has no real place, if parents really want their kids to do it i'm sure they can make time in the evening and a weekends to do any prep or go to any masses etc...

Of course preparation for the sacraments has a real place in a school with a religious ethos. That's the whole bloody point of it's religious ethos and why faith formation is an intrinsic part of the religious curriculum. The religious curriculum is fundamental to the ethos of the school, and it is through the religious ethos that the State mandated curriculum is delivered.

The parents are supposed to do what you're suggesting anyway as part of their proclaimed faith. Whether they actually do or not, is a matter entirely for themselves, but to say that preparation for the sacraments has no real place in a religious ethos school, is missing the point.

realdanbreen

Walter H Price wrote: »

I do , I just disagree with the prep for it being done during class time , taking up time that could be used for real subjects like science or history and the fact that kids of different or no religion are kind of left to one side coloring or whatever while the majority of the class are doing the prep work.

As said in a previous pot one of my mates got his 8 year old baptised just before Christmas because she was being bullied in a way by the other kids for being the only one not making her communion, don't see the need for religious instruction in schools it has no real place , if parents really want their kids to do it i'm sure they can make time in the evening and a weekends to do any prep or go to any masses etc...

So the bit of religious instruction that a child gets during the week in primary school is 'taking up time' that the child could be studying history or science? As you say the majority will be getting relligious instruction so why don't you spend time in the evening or at the weekends filling them in on their history and science?

silverharp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well ok, not a fundamental belief in that sense, but Muhammad is a venerated figure among Muslims, and they tend to view depictions like the cartoons as an attack on their Muslim identity. It's a bit like the way when I was back in school and there was a statue of Jesus in the school yard, we all came in one Monday morning and there was a condom hanging off the outstretched finger. We had to try pretend we were deeply offended. Most of us didn't even know what a condom was, and those of us who did were breaking our holes laughing :pac:

Terrible stuff altogether

As teenagers they aint going to respect this stuff , I'd imagine my class today would probably have photocopied an image of Mohammed and stuck them up all over the classroom just to wind everyone up. It was a cauldron where any weakness was exploited mercilessly. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the whole point of the ET philosophy isn't so much applying intellectual rigour to religions, but to celebrate and be respectful of the people who hold different beliefs, practice different traditions, and have different cultural values to their own. You couldn't go any further than scratching the surface without someone getting their knickers in a bunch.

no fair enough, it is what it is but in a way "celebrating" a belief or culture seems like an odd thing altogether , it sounds a bit Fr Ted and the Chinese, a great bunch of lads! . I get in somewhere like NI you might want do something after an armed conflict but the US which is more culturally blind seems to have generated more genuine integration. the ET model seems to contain a bit of virtue signalling where you can wear your liberal values on your sleeve?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By their own standards, they can't. The whole mix of ideologies and trying to accommodate them all means they're not going to be stepping on anyone's toes, and nobody is offended, and they all get on great. That's the theory anyway. But the more diversity you allow for, the more likely there are to be teething problems with integration and showing respect to everyone within such a diverse group.

I remember talking to a dad from one of the Balkan countries about when they meet other people from other Balkan countries and his basic comment was that Irish people just class us all as "foreigners" so I think the attitude was not to play on differences that might mean something in their countries of origin. to me it seems healthier for a child's ego not to puff it up based on where they come from

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When ET was set up about 30 years back, the idea was to accommodate all faiths and none, and it was all fairly moderate stuff and it was easy for them to say they don't discriminate and all the rest of it. Now, in the age of identity politics and multiculturalism, they're beginning to realise that their idealism may have been a tad short-sighted.

Personally, I think showing respect for diversity and accommodating people is a good thing, there's plenty of room for everyone, but far too many people aren't prepared to give up anything and want everything their own way. That's no way for a society to function either.

all these things start off with good intentions and Ireland was fairly insular 30 years ago but by the sheer commonness of it today nobody bats an eyelid. the focus as I see it is to pull people into the centre not point out where everyone is different.

Walter H Price

My point is why do schools run by the state staffed by teachers trained with and paid for by the tax payer have a religious ethos ? specifically one religion , its a joke.

I will happily teach my kids science and history outside school , i just don't see why class time is being wasted on a bunch of made up nonsense that has little or no meaning in the modern world , when they could be using the time to learn actual relevant subjects.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

So the bit of religious instruction that a child gets during the week in primary school is 'taking up time' that the child could be studying history or science? As you say the majority will be getting relligious instruction so why don't you spend time in the evening or at the weekends filling them in on their history and science?

Something has to be wrong with the scenario if you're suggesting that parents homeschool their children due to time lost because of sacrament preparation/ religious instruction.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

Something has to be wrong with the scenario if you're suggesting that parents homeschool their children due to time lost because of sacrament preparation/ religious instruction.

The thing that's wrong with the scenario is parents enrolling their children in religious ethos schools, expecting that the school would not help to prepare children for the sacraments in the school. The school doesn't see it as a waste of time, and the parents are supposed to practice their faith, and raise their children as part of the community of the faithful... but they don't. If they want to encourage their children in science and technology and so on, then yes, they would have to commit to making time to do that themselves. Many parents already do. They're not depending on the school as a free daycare service.

Walter H Price

Walter H Price wrote: »

I just don't see why class time is being wasted on a bunch of made up nonsense that has little or no meaning in the modern world , when they could be using the time to learn actual relevant subjects.

Because it's not made up its very much as real as any other subject a child learns, just because you have turned your back on it doesn't mean others have and an awful lot of people believe it is very relevant and important for children to have the catholic faith being part of their school day.

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

As teenagers they aint going to respect this stuff , I'd imagine my class today would probably have photocopied an image of Mohammed and stuck them up all over the classroom just to wind everyone up. It was a cauldron where any weakness was exploited mercilessly. :rolleyes:

Weaknesses are still exploited today, only now with technology and social media, it's moved to a whole new level of intimidation. Before you could knock seven bells out of each other at small lunch break, and be playing hurling on the same team at big break. Now there are organised fights on social media and easier ways to bully people without even leaving the house. We have our own little melting pot building up nicely and I genuinely do think at some stage people are just going to think "fcuk it!", and lose their shìt altogether. There's only so long anyone can contain that, and I really don't think society is any better for it's containment.

no fair enough, it is what it is but in a way "celebrating" a belief or culture seems like an odd thing altogether , it sounds a bit Fr Ted and the Chinese, a great bunch of lads! . I get in somewhere like NI you might want do something after an armed conflict but the US which is more culturally blind seems to have generated more genuine integration. the ET model seems to contain a bit of virtue signalling where you can wear your liberal values on your sleeve?

Bingo. And I hate saying it but liberal lefty virtue signalling is what the ET model is based upon - "we all love each other and we're all so diverse and accepting", until a Muslim immigrant turns up and it's "who invited you to the party?". There's still an awful lot of prejudice and suspicion among people who were fine being liberal, while their credentials were never tested. Suddenly they're looking more and more conservative because their ideology is under threat.

I remember talking to a dad from one of the Balkan countries about when they meet other people from other Balkan countries and his basic comment was that Irish people just class us all as "foreigners" so I think the attitude was not to play on differences that might mean something in their countries of origin. to me it seems healthier for a child's ego not to puff it up based on where they come from.

That's the problem I have with forced integration - it can't be done. Integration has to happen naturally. If people set up a society where everyone has what appears to an outsider to be as much freedom as they like, an outsider is going to want to be part of that. But when they get here they're being forced to fit in and they can't, so they self-segregate themselves into their own communities and keep themselves to themselves. That's how ghettoization happens. The US isn't so blind to culture as it might appear to be from the outside, and we're going the same way.

all these things start off with good intentions and Ireland was fairly insular 30 years ago but by the sheer commonness of it today nobody bats an eyelid. the focus as I see it is to pull people into the centre not point out where everyone is different.

I'd be the same too (though I do lean more to the right in fairness), but rather than expect immigrants should have to conform, I'm more interested in our commonalities, while at the same time respecting our differences. That's the way I think anyway people should learn from each other, rather than what to me at least, looks like a token effort, or just a nod to integration. It's barely scratching the surface IMO - integration, but just not too much, and on our terms. That's not integration.

wokingvoter

Walter H Price wrote: »

I do , I just disagree with the prep for it being done during class time , taking up time that could be used for real subjects like science or history and the fact that kids of different or no religion are kind of left to one side coloring or whatever while the majority of the class are doing the prep work.

As said in a previous pot one of my mates got his 8 year old baptised just before Christmas because she was being bullied in a way by the other kids for being the only one not making her communion, don't see the need for religious instruction in schools it has no real place , if parents really want their kids to do it i'm sure they can make time in the evening and a weekends to do any prep or go to any masses etc...

This is interesting. Bullying because she wasn't making her communion? I'd love to know how the school dealt with the situation. Do you know?
Personally I'd prefer to move schools then go through a whole sham of hypocrisy with the priest and the Baptism team and everything.
A lot of lies had to be told to get the child baptised at that age
Was there really nothing the school could do about the bullying?
Seems an odd solution to a bullying problem from my point of view.

Atomic Pineapple

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

We have an excellent education system in Ireland and rank very well considering we are a small island nation.

We do indeed, but mostly from second level and above where religion takes a back seat. Also the size of the nation is irrelevant.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

The majority of people don't want the education to change only a small vocal minority who if they are not happy with the excellent education system and don't want the catholic teaching that most people want then they should come together to set up their own schools.

Saying people are looking to change the education system is simply wrong, pursuing inclusiveness does not impact on the education system in anyway. We actually all already pay for the schools so the correct approach is for the state to remove religion from state funded schools and for those seeking a religious ethos to cater for religious teaching themselves. This will have no impact on the excellence of the education system and will still allow those of religious ethos to choose to have their child educated in that ethos.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

They will be happy and the majority of us who want or children (or future children in my case) educated in catholic ethos schools will also be happier if catholic schools where only Catholics attend.

Indeed, this is fine as long as the catholic church supplies the education and not the state.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

I have relations in the UK and people go to massive efforts to get into catholic schools because they are far superior to non-religious state schools and also only Catholics are allowed go there and this is very strictly enforced, being baptised is not enough you need to tick a lot of boxes to be even considered for being admitted and the better the school the stricter the entry rules.

Assuming these are private schools as any state funded Catholic school in the UK will accept those of any faith and only prioritise those of Catholic faith if demand is high.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

You would get awful tired reading the constant whining and even worse the belittling and mocking of religious teaching in schools which is a very important part of a child's education to an awful lot of people and the last thing that's wanted is a change to our system.

Calling it whining is a bit disrespectful, it's easy to look down on it when the state currently offers you what your beliefs need on a plate without having to do any work and punishes others. It may be an important part of a child's education to some people but it's not to everyone and advocating the oppression of someone else's beliefs to make sure it's easy to cater for your own is not a very upstanding approach to take.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

Because it's not made up its very much as real as any other subject a child learns

Except it's not, to you it is real which is fine but it's not quantifiable like maths or history.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

just because you have turned your back on it doesn't mean others have

Accusing someone of turning their back on religion because they have differing beliefs is definitely disrespectful. Of course I understand that what the poster said may have been disrespectful to you too.

Leonidas Teeny Connection wrote: »

an awful lot of people believe it is very relevant and important for children to have the catholic faith being part of their school day.

An awful lot of people also believe it has no place in education and all they are asking for is to be catered for in the education system, not the eradication of religious teaching throughout that some scaremongering catholics claim.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The thing that's wrong with the scenario is parents enrolling their children in religious ethos schools, expecting that the school would not help to prepare children for the sacraments in the school. The school doesn't see it as a waste of time, and the parents are supposed to practice their faith, and raise their children as part of the community of the faithful... but they don't. If they want to encourage their children in science and technology and so on, then yes, they would have to commit to making time to do that themselves. Many parents already do. They're not depending on the school as a free daycare service.

Expecting a public school to educate kids rather than have them watch other kids get instructed in religious protocols for communion/confirmation hardly seems unreasonable.

It's certainly more reasonable than telling non-Roman Catholics to take up the slack created by religious prep by home-schooling their kids when they get home from school.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

its not up to the teacher to find out every belief of every student. Even if she was aware that there were muslim raised children in her class this doesnt imply that they must not see particular images. its up to the students to pipe up.

I disagree, is the teacher not responsible for the students? Do the school not “respect all religions and none”? Or should respect only extend as far as their feelings about fish?

silverharp wrote: »

you can deconstruct a lesson plan all you want but the Hebdo magazine can be relevant to a free speech discussion. the teacher did nothing wrong bringing any issue of the magazine into her class.

I didn't desconstruct the lesson, nor the teacher bring the magazine in. Seriously, did you acquaint yourself with any of the facts before you weighed in?

silverharp wrote: »

if a teacher had done that in my kids class and they had let me know about it,I would have thought it was an interesting thing to have done, "necessary" is not a standard to measure this why would it be? and I cant think why it would be inappropriate unless it was violent or of a sexual nature

And as I said, I'm happy enough to stack what I judge to be of educational value against what you judge to be of educational value, but I think at this stage you can stop pretending your presumptions are supposedly based on what occurred, having demonstrated you didn't even bother to review the events reported.

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Secular Schools Ireland are going for it, so it's a message that seems to be getting through....

One eyed Jack

Atomic Pineapple wrote: »

We do indeed, but mostly from second level and above where religion takes a back seat. Also the size of the nation is irrelevant.

Where did you get the idea that religion takes a back seat at secondary level? If anything it delves into religion in more depth than at primary level. The size of the nation is of course relevant in terms of resources allocated to education, and we are punching well above our weight internationally in terms of our output produced from the input by the State in education.

Saying people are looking to change the education system is simply wrong, pursuing inclusiveness does not impact on the education system in anyway. We actually all already pay for the schools so the correct approach is for the state to remove religion from state funded schools and for those seeking a religious ethos to cater for religious teaching themselves.

Saying that you want religious ethos schools removed from the patronage system is looking to change the education system. You can't remove religion from schools because the State does not fund the schools, it provides for the education of the nations children. Whoever provides that education, the State would still have to provide the funding for it. We don't pay for the schools, we pay for the education of the nations children. Those seeking a religious ethos education already are catering for it themselves. They pay taxes too!

Indeed, this is fine as long as the catholic church supplies the education and not the state.

The Catholic Church does supply the education, the State also supplies the education - the religious curriculum and the State curriculum.

Assuming these are private schools as any state funded Catholic school in the UK will accept those of any faith and only prioritise those of Catholic faith if demand is high.

The same as RC schools in Ireland then?

Calling it whining is a bit disrespectful, it's easy to look down on it when the state currently offers you what your beliefs need on a plate without having to do any work and punishes others. It may be an important part of a child's education to some people but it's not to everyone and advocating the oppression of someone else's beliefs to make sure it's easy to cater for your own is not a very upstanding approach to take.

The State isn't punishing anyone, and you can't have failed to miss the irony of the part in bold there when you were earlier suggesting that the correct approach is to remove religion from "State funded" schools? What's that if it's not punishing someone, oppressing them, and looking down your nose at them? You'd be doing the very same then if you were in a majority, and you'd have no problem suggesting anyone calling for their beliefs and values to be respected and provided for, is only whining.

Except it's not, to you it is real which is fine but it's not quantifiable like maths or history.

Are philosophy, art, music and drama quantifiable? No, but they are just as important a part of the curriculum as maths or history. Religion is an important part of the curriculum in religious ethos schools as any other subject, even moreso than any other subjects.

Accusing someone of turning their back on religion because they have differing beliefs is definitely disrespectful.

I'll agree with you there, it was disrespectful, and unnecessary, and there's a lot of that about, unnecessary disrespect for those people who don't share your philosophy and values. I wonder if there's ever a compromise can be reached that would mean there would be no need for people to show an unnecessary disrespect for other people's philosophy and values?

An awful lot of people also believe it has no place in education and all they are asking for is to be catered for in the education system, not the eradication of religious teaching throughout that some scaremongering catholics claim.

Didn't you just state in black and white that the correct thing for the State to do would be to remove religion from State funded schools? It's hardly unwarranted fear then, is it? You're not just asking to be catered for in the education system, you're demanding that the children who attend religious ethos schools be denied an education. You're punishing and oppressing children by denying them an education because you, who is in a minority, want the State to provide for only the type of education that suits a minority...

You do realise that there's a better chance of Jesus making a comeback before that's ever likely to happen?