Raising your children concerning religion

Kevin_rc_ie

How do you teach your children about religion?

Do you teach them right from wrong and leave the rest for them to decide on their own?
Do you emphasis elements of your own religion and teach them about it?

The majority of people in Ireland are Christian, and the vast majority baptise their children and to some extent raise them as Christians (mass etc.). Do you agree with this?

Would the denomination of local schools effect where you would send your children to be educated?

OfflerCrocGod

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

How do you teach your children about religion?

Don't. Religion divides. Ethics can exist quite happily without religion, there is no need to "teach" it for the purpose of teaching what is right and wrong.

Kernel32

I have to agree with OfflerCrocGod. I was raised Catholic and my wife with no particular religion. After our son was born she was ok with him being baptized to keep my family happy, but I was againist it. My feeling is that I would be a hypocrite if I did that as I have no interest religion. Right and wrong, morals and ethics can all be taught regardless of religion and I think its better to do that seperately otherwise your moral compass is driven by someone else's belief(the religion) and not what you yourself believe.

mike65

Ditto all the above.

Right and wrong is nothing to do with religion, your child needs no special help from a faith, if when old enough to have an interest in "faith" and she/he decides to pursue a line of thought then fine. But no parent or indeed grand parent should dictate spiritual or religious belif.

Mike.

Beruthiel

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

How do you teach your children about religion?

I didn't

Do you teach them right from wrong and leave the rest for them to decide on their own

that's it exactly
if you teach your child to have a moral conscience and make them think about how they behave in general and towards others, what more does any person need? certainly not any religion.
If they choose one later themselves, fair enough, at least it was their own decision.

Kevin_rc_ie

Well I personally think, parents have an obligation to instill some element of faith/spirtuality/religion in their children.

Yes, you can say, leave it to themselves and let them find their own path. But do you expect your children to be religionless until their mid/late teens?

What's the problem raising your children Christian, there is no obligation on them really, they can always turn away from it if it's not for them. The same would apply for most other religions.

Nevyn

With the vast majority of schools being state primary school they will get
christian teaching in school.
Basic default in most cases.
My children are not christain but they are told about my beliefs,
and that of thier grandparents and other faiths.
They are full of questions and I let them see God/s trough thier own world.
They are taught right from wrong and not to harm others for they woudl not
anyone to do mean things to them not cos it makes baby jesus cry.

ArthurDent

Thaed wrote:

With the vast majority of schools being state primary school they will get
christian teaching in school.
Basic default in most cases.
My children are not christain but they are told about my beliefs,
and that of thier grandparents and other faiths.
They are full of questions and I let them see God/s trough thier own world.
They are taught right from wrong and not to harm others for they woudl not
anyone to do mean things to them not cos it makes baby jesus cry.

Thaed, getting up on my high horse here, so apologies!
The reason that most primary schools teach Christianity is precisely because they are not state schools - they are national schools. The Government (all governments for the past 70 odd years) have abidicated the responsiblity of education principally to the major denominations in the country. In the early days of the republic, this probably made sense - almost all free education in the country provided for by COI/RC churches and almost all of the popuation would have described themselves as belonging to one of the major faith systems. So we now have a situation where 95% of primary schools under the patronage of RC/COI - schools now mainly built by tax payers money on lands owned by one or other of the churches. Situation is changing and now many schools are built on public lands, but again many (not all) are under the patronage (ie run) by one or other of the churches.

And to answer the op - yes the religion of your child can directly effect schools you can choose. There is a deregation in equal status acts that allows denominational schools to descriminate against those who are not of that religion when offering school places.

Nevyn

They are still goverment funded and goverment run.
I am well aware of the inbetweeen status of such schools
as mine own attend one, and we have to walk through the local
RC church to acesss the front gate of the school.
Unfortunatly we are not with in walking distance of any of the new
and recently proposed Educate together schools.

ArthurDent

Thaed wrote:

They are still goverment funded and goverment run.
I am well aware of the inbetweeen status of such schools
as mine own attend one, and we have to walk through the local
RC church to acesss the front gate of the school.
Unfortunatly we are not with in walking distance of any of the new
and recently proposed Educate together schools.

I know I'm going to come across as pedantic here, so again apologies
All national schools are funded (or underfunded) by the governement, but they are not run by the Govt/Dept of Education. The arrangement here is that the running of schools is devolved from the Minister of Education to local Boards of Management. The Boards of Managment are set up by the patrons of the schools - either the local Bishop in the case of RC and COI schools or Educate Together, An Forus Patrunach or the Patron Body for Muslim schools (sorry don't know its formal title).

The responsibility of running a school - everything from hiring and firing teachers, to enrolment policy to any other policies of the school is with the Board of Management. It takes a Ministerial order to dissolve a Board of Management and to place a local manager in a school.
This can be a good or bad thing depending on your opinion/experiences of education system. But there is no uniform management of schools throughout the country.

Re not being within walking distance of an ET school - have you contacted ET head office at 4292500, there might be other parents in your area that would be interested in starting up a school in your area that they could put you in contact with. All ET schools have been set up on the basis of a local group of parents getting together and showing a need for such a school.

Nevyn

ArthurDent wrote:

Re not being within walking distance of an ET school - have you contacted ET head office at 4292500, there might be other parents in your area that would be interested in starting up a school in your area that they could put you in contact with. All ET schools have been set up on the basis of a local group of parents getting together and showing a need for such a school.

I am well aware of the progress of the two ET schools that are going up near by.
One in Ongar the other in Mulhudart and how stretched they are and all the hold
ups they are suffering in getting buildings started at one site and with finalising the planning permission in the other.
They are hoping to have the schools up and running in some fashion come September. But both of these will be more then a 30 min walk for my two,
so we will see.

ArthurDent

Thaed, the Ongar ET school, Castaheany ET is already up and running, they shared our accomodation (in Lucan) last year and next year will again be in temporary accomodation in Mary - Mother of Hope NS. AFAIK the site for their school has been sorted out and planning permission is being sought at the moment. It will be a 24 classroom school. i know there is another one to start in Tyrrelstown in Sept if that is nearer you, best of luck with whatever you choose for your kids.

delly

Christened a Catholic like most ROI people, but have long since disowned religion in its entirety. This is also why I got married in a registry office. When I do have kids I won’t be baptising them and will do my damn best to send them to a non denominational school.

This doesn’t mean that I won’t tell them about religion though, in the same way that I will have to talk to them about life and death. I’ll try and give as much information as I can about all the relevant religions, while trying to give some facts as well. If at a later stage my child chooses to take up a religion, be it Catholicism, Judaism or Islam, then I will support that choice knowing that is of there own free will, as apposed to indoctrination.

CJhaughey

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

Well I personally think, parents have an obligation to instill some element of faith/spirtuality/religion in their children.

Yes, you can say, leave it to themselves and let them find their own path. But do you expect your children to be religionless until their mid/late teens?

What's the problem raising your children Christian, there is no obligation on them really, they can always turn away from it if it's not for them. The same would apply for most other religions.

I was never christened or attended any religious ceremonies at all , and I was going to do the same for my son until my wife RC said that her parents would prefer if the child was christened.
I thought about it and came to the conclusion that it would make no earthly difference to the child.
I will still bring him up to be open minded but will avoid any religious teachings and have spoken to my wife about this and she is supportive of the idea.
WRT to Kevin's post above , once the idea of a god has been introduced than there is no going back. The default position is atheism.

Talliesin

CJhaughey wrote:

The default position is atheism.

How? It's impossible to say "there are no gods" unless you are aware of the concept of gods.

CJhaughey

Yes, you are right, I phrased it badly.
What I was trying clumsily to say was that you cannot bring up a child with the concept of a god and then expect the child to accept that there is no god.
Does that make sense?
If you do it the reverse way like KevinRc by teaching the child that first of all there is a god and secondly the whole religious concept than the child cannot know a state of being without the concept of a god.?
AGHHHHHHHH it is hard to articulate....

OfflerCrocGod

Talliesin wrote:

How? It's impossible to say "there are no gods" unless you are aware of the concept of gods.

Well if you take atheism to mean Godlessness as in

Recognizing or worshiping no god.

Then yes as a matter of fact atheism is the default position of the human mind.

Talliesin

CJhaughey wrote:

If you do it the reverse way like KevinRc by teaching the child that first of all there is a god and secondly the whole religious concept than the child cannot know a state of being without the concept of a god.?
AGHHHHHHHH it is hard to articulate....

But how can you educate a child without telling them about the concept of gods. How can they have any understanding of European history and culture* without at least understanding the basic precepts of Christianity, a smidgen of Classical Paganism, a bit about Judaism and at least knowing that Islam and various Pagan beliefs outside of Classical Paganism existed?

Not letting them know about the concept at all just isn't an option really.

*I'm narrowing this down to kids that live in Ireland and hence are affected by European history and culture to a large extent, analogous points apply elsewhere

causal

Talliesin wrote:

Not letting them know about the concept at all just isn't an option really.

Exactly right - it's simply unavoidable.
It's in everyday language, when someone sneezes "god bless you", everyday exclaimations "good god", "oh my god", and the usual "he's a lovely child god bless him" etc. etc. and your child will naturally copy these expressions. You may avoid saying them - but you can't control everyone the child comes in contact with.

As for explaining gods or religions I think I'll put them in the context of being fairytales, stories. Just the same as other fairytales and stories like santa claus, the tooth fairy, barney, thomas the tank, lord of the rings etc.

causal

Khannie

I'm an athiest but was raised catholic and my wife's catholic. We were married in a church, and I had to agree to raising our children as catholic to get this kind of marriage. I have to say that I think that religion is an important part in a childs life. Each religion holds generations of wisdom on what's acceptable behaviour, what's not, etc.
Granted, some of it is out-dated, but most moral guidelines handed down by the church that affect children (i.e. not birth control, questions of sexual morality etc.) are timeless IMO.

I understand where people are coming from saying that parents can instill their own morals, but I think that (with the best will in the world) you'll find it difficult to come up with (and enforce consistently) an equivalently encompassing set of guiding principles.

Once a child has matured to the point where there is the ability to choose in belief or otherwise, this will happen anyway, regardless of what the parent thinks. I don't see any serious negatives really.

All this coming from an athiest too!

Kernel32

The concept and understanding of religion and the worship and belief in a religion are two different and distinct things. You can teach about the former without requiring the latter.

I am always confused by Christians who profess to have the "faith" but yet they question whether or not to instill that belief in their child. Isn't the very nature of faith the unquestioning belief in your god? Aren't you also compelled to spread the good news, the word of god? By not teaching your faith to your child, in my opinion you are questioning your own faith.

CJhaughey made a good point about the default position of atheism.
For centuries christians have been conducting missionaries to convert the unbelievers to the word of god, to bring them salvation and all that. It is part of the mandate of every christian to do that. When a child is born they do not believe in god. A christian parents job is to undertake a mission to convert that child from aethism to christianity, not much different than going to a foreign country to convert the heathens. There is one major difference though, a child lacks the intellectual capacity to question what they are being taught. They simply accept it. Later on they may question their faith and explore other options or they may continue on the path of acceptance.

Well I personally think, parents have an obligation to instill some element of faith/spirtuality/religion in their children.

If you yourself profess to have faith then you have an obligation from your church to pass that on to your child. While I don't agree with doing that you have every right as a parent teach your child about your faith and your god. I choose not to associate morals with religious teaching. That is my belief and my right as a parent.

causal

Kernel32 wrote:

CJhaughey made a good point about the default position of atheism.

The default position is 'null'.
i.e. a newborn has zero knowledge of god(s)/religion/etc.
Children are only ever aware of the concept of god(s)/religion/etc. after they have been exposed to them.
Similarly children are only ever aware of theism/atheism/agnosticism after they have been exposed to them.

causal

Kevin_rc_ie

what exactly does a newborn baby have knowledge of? careful not to confuse hardcoded instincts with knowledge.

causal

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

what exactly does a newborn baby have knowledge of? careful not to confuse hardcoded instincts with knowledge.

Do you think a child is born knowing about god(s), religion, theism, atheism, agnosticism?
I'm saying I don't think they are.

causal

OfflerCrocGod

causal wrote:

Do you think a child is born knowing about god(s), religion, theism, atheism, agnosticism?
I'm saying I don't think they are.

causal

Please read my post above, some people here are mistaking the meaning of Atheism to be anti-religion, it's not at all. I agree with Kernel32 there does seem to be some confusion as to what is being discussed here.

causal

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Please read my post above, some people here are mistaking the meaning of Atheism to be anti-religion, it's not at all. I agree with Kernel32 there does seem to be some confusion as to what is being discussed here.

There's certainly nothing in any of my posts to suggest I have confused atheism with anti-religion. So I'm not sure why you quoted me and asked me to read your post again?

Atheism
1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Theism
1. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
2. The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods

Agnosticism
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

Now imho none of the above apply to a newborn. That is why I said that the default for a newborn is 'null' i.e. they are unaware of the concept of god(s). Therefore they can't hold a position on god(s), therefore they are not atheist/theist/agnostic/etc.
IOW I don't think that a newborn child is born atheist (not believing in god) no more than I think a newborn child is born theist (believing in god) no more than I think a newborn child is born agnostic (believing the existence of god, or not, cannot be proven).

imho children only become theist or atheist or agnostic or whatever their viewpoint AFTER these ideas have been brought/taught to them by parents/school/church/etc.

To return to the OP question. I instill a set of values as I deem appropriate so that the child will act in a socially responsible manner. I am planning to leave beliefs/religion/god out of it until before shortly before he starts school, then I will introduce them as per my earlier post.
Denomination of school is a factor - but it's not the only factor.

causal

RainyDay

delly wrote:

When I do have kids I won’t be baptising them and will do my damn best to send them to a non denominational school.

That was my plan too. However, the nearest non-denominational school is a 3-4 mile car journey away, whereas there are several denominational schools within walking distance. Do I really want to condemn my little girl to 8 years of car commuting?

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that we had our little girl christened solely to ensure that she is not down at the bottom of the list when it comes to enrollement at the over-subscribed national schools in a few years time.

I really think there is a great opportunity for a constitutional case against the recent Education Act (1999?) which enshrined religious descrimination on enrollment policies into the legislation.

Kevin_rc_ie

RainyDay wrote:

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that we had our little girl christened solely to ensure that she is not down at the bottom of the list when it comes to enrollement at the over-subscribed national schools in a few years time.

you should be.

OfflerCrocGod

causal wrote:

Atheism
1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Now imho none of the above apply to a newborn.

From my original post

Recognizing or worshiping no god.

Therefore yes it is the default position.

causal

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

causal wrote:

Atheism
1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

Now imho none of the above apply to a newborn.

From my original post

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Recognizing or worshiping no god.

Therefore yes it is the default position.

If you mean 'godlessness' then you should say 'godlessness', not atheism.
The primary meaning of 'atheism' is not godlessness.

Furthermore, since the existence of god is unproven, the use of 'godness' or 'godlessness' is presumptuous and inappropriate.
So imho neither 'atheism' nor 'godlessness' is the default; 'null' is the default.

causal

RainyDay

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

you should be.

Come back to me when you have your own kids and you're faced with compromising your children's education to accomodate state-sponsored religious discrimination.

OfflerCrocGod

RainyDay wrote:

Come back to me when you have your own kids and you're faced with compromising your children's education to accomodate state-sponsored religious discrimination.

What discrimination? Who cares if your kid is christened or not? I am honestly lost as to how your child would be discriminated againts.

causal

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

What discrimination? Who cares if your kid is christened or not? I am honestly lost as to how your child would be discriminated againts.

The discrimination is real. And it's the school admission board who care if your kid is christened or not:

ArthurDent wrote:

And to answer the op - yes the religion of your child can directly effect schools you can choose. There is a deregation in equal status acts that allows denominational schools to descriminate against those who are not of that religion when offering school places.

And in case there's any doubt, here is an extract from my local RC primary school enrolment procedure:

Enrolment
<snip>
When demand exceeds supply of places in Junior Infants classes priority is given to the eldest catholic children resident in the parish of XXXXXX and to siblings of pupils already enrolled in YYYYYY [the school]

But remember, we're all created equal :rolleyes:

causal

PS - I only used an RC school as an example but this practice applies to other denominational schools too.

loyatemu

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

What discrimination? Who cares if your kid is christened or not? I am honestly lost as to how your child would be discriminated againts.

if your child is not baptised there is a very good chance they will not get into any local primary school (parish members get priority). non-denominational schools are thin on the ground, and often subsisting in temporary accomodation and poor facilities.

The previous suggestion that you start your own educate together school is all very well but it should be possible to get an education for your child without having to start your own school.

RainyDay

Thanks to Causal & Loyatemu for explaining the difficulties inherent in the current structures and legislation. Why should any state funded institution be able to discriminate based on religion in this way?

CJhaughey

RainyDay wrote:

Why should any state funded institution be able to discriminate based on religion in this way?

Because we live in a non-secular state.

causal

CJhaughey wrote:

Because we live in a non-secular state.

Actually, we live in a secular state - i.e. civil laws take precedence over religious laws.

In this case [children & school], the civil laws permit religious discrimination; but that would be irrelevant if the religious denominations didn't practice it.
Unfortunately they do, I'm curious if this discrimination is part of religious law, and if not then where is it rooted?
I'm also curious what justification is given by the various religious denominations for this discrimination.
I was of the understanding that most religious denominations were inclusive, not exclusive.

causal

loyatemu

the denominational schools do not exclude children of other\no religion they just give priority to children of their denomination.

they generally have criteria to detirmine who gets priority - eg a catholic school might first admit catholics from the local parish, followed by catholics from other parishes, followed by non-catholics from the local area. As schools fill up very quickly, if you are not religious you have very little chance of getting your children into the local religious school.

ArthurDent

RainyDay wrote:

Why should any state funded institution be able to discriminate based on religion in this way?

It's certainly something that Educate Together has been asking too....
http://www.educatetogether.ie/2_campaigns/humanrightsandirished.html

Nevyn

Yes but unfortunatly they dont get the support they should have.

causal

loyatemu wrote:

the denominational schools do not exclude children of other\no religion they just give priority to children of their denomination.

That's not entirely correct.
They do give priority to children of their own religion, but consequently they will exclude children of other\no religion if necessary.

So while it's not total exclusion, it is conditional exclusion; in either case it is discrimination.

causal

CJhaughey

causal wrote:

Actually, we live in a secular state - i.e. civil laws take precedence over religious laws.


causal

I would beg to differ , this link explains it a little better.

causal

CJhaughey wrote:

I would beg to differ , this link explains it a little better.

That link reinforces the fact we're a secular state, it says:

A secular state is a state with no state religion and in which the state is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices.

Thus, we are a secular state, since there is no state religion in Ireland:

From http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24414.htm

The Constitution prohibits promotion of one religion over another and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, and the Government does not restrict the teaching or practice of any faith. There is no state religion, and there is no discrimination against nontraditional religious groups. There is no legal requirement that religious groups or organizations register with the Government, nor is there any formal mechanism for government recognition of a religion or religious group.

From http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Irish_Free_State

State religion none. State prohibited from endowing any religion in constitution

From http://www.emi-premier.co.uk/commonground/notes/facts.html

There is no state religion in either jurisdiction, though most people on the island profess one version or other of the Christian faiths.

causal

CJhaughey

If the state is neutral how come the state broadcaster RTE plays the Angelus? Surely they should play nothing?
I still do not accept the separation of church and state has happened fully.

causal

CJhaughey wrote:

If the state is neutral how come the state broadcaster RTE plays the Angelus? Surely they should play nothing?

Why not ask RTE?

I still do not accept the separation of church and state has happened fully.

Perhaps, but that's not what we were discussing. Recall your original statement:

Because we live in a non-secular state.

In response to that I made the point that we do live in a secular state.
Whether or not there is full separation of the state and church is a very different debate.

To bring this back to the topic, the significance of being a secular state is that it is not the state who discriminate against any denomination; however the law does facilitate all denominational schools to discriminate against schoolchildren of other denominations/beliefs in certain circumstances.

causal

Talliesin

causal wrote:

Perhaps, but that's not what we were discussing.

Eh, CJhaughey was saying that we don't live in a secular state, and then you came in with stuff about how the state claims to be secular. I think it's you that is talking at cross-purposes, not CJhaughey.

causal

Talliesin wrote:

Eh, CJhaughey was saying that we don't live in a secular state, and then you came in with stuff about how the state claims to be secular. I think it's you that is talking at cross-purposes, not CJhaughey.

With respect, I don't think so.
Slightly less briefly, the dialogue was like this:
CJ said: "we live in a non-secular state"
I said: "Actually, we live in a secular state"
CJ said: "I would beg to differ , this link explains it a little better."
I said: "That link reinforces the fact we're a secular state,"
***and next comes the change in direction***
CJ said: "I still do not accept the separation of church and state has happened fully."
I said: "Perhaps, but that's not what we were discussing."

Quite simply we wern't discussing whether or not there was a full separation between church and state; maybe there is, or maybe there isn't.

imho CJhaughey provided no evidence to support his statement that we are a non-secular state;
otoh, I did provide evidence to support my statement that we are a secular state.

Even according to the link CJhaughey provided on the secular state

A secular state is a state with no state religion and in which the state is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices.

And then we check the meaning of state religion

A state religion (also called an established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. The term state church is most closely associated with Christianity, although it is sometimes used in the context of other faiths as well. Closely related to state churches are what sociologists call ecclesiae, though the two are slightly different.

That simply isn't the case in this state, ergo we're secular.

Now if people want to claim that officially we're secular but unofficially we're non-secular - well then that's a different debate too.

causal

Khannie

The catholic church was given special privileges in the original constitution. This was removed in the 70's, at least in the written constitution . The full text is available here for anyone who wants it.

One thing that points to non-secularism in practice (IMO) is the angelus. At 6pm every day, the catholic church gets one minute of prime time advertising from the state broadcaster, paid for by all those with TV Licences. No other religions are given any such privileges.

Khannie

RainyDay wrote:

Come back to me when you have your own kids and you're faced with compromising your children's education to accomodate state-sponsored religious discrimination.

HAHAHA. Brilliant. Best post I've read all day.

rsynnott

Kevin_rc_ie wrote:

Well I personally think, parents have an obligation to instill some element of faith/spirtuality/religion in their children.

Yes, you can say, leave it to themselves and let them find their own path. But do you expect your children to be religionless until their mid/late teens?

What's the problem raising your children Christian, there is no obligation on them really, they can always turn away from it if it's not for them. The same would apply for most other religions.

I felt some obligation to pretend to believe in this "God" person as a young child, and even made my confirmation. Not a huge deal, but I remember feeling very unhappy about not really being able to tell my parents I didn't believe in it when I was a young kid; around 11 or 12 it was overshadowed by the much greater issue of not being able to tell them about my sexuality. As it happens, I was worrying about nothing; they're fully appraised of both facts now, and happy enough about it.

If I ever reproduce (HIGHLY unlikely, and prob'ly just as well), I'd try to bring my children up with an idea of ethics unpolluted with religion; if they wanted to believe in a god or gods, that'd be their own afair, but I certainly wouldn't push either that or my own rabid atheism on them.

As to the schools, I definitely feel that we should be moving towards a more modern, secular system, particularly with the current heavy immigration of people with non-Catholic backgrounds.

ArthurDent

rsynnott wrote:

As to the schools, I definitely feel that we should be moving towards a more modern, secular system, particularly with the current heavy immigration of people with non-Catholic backgrounds.

and here is the nub of the problem, the vast majority of primary schools (denominational, that is) are built on church lands, all be it with mainly your and my taxes and do you think that the denominations are going to hand over those schools without significant payment? We got ourselves into the current situation because in the 19th and early 20th century the main source of free education was the denominations and our governments (and people) were happy to accept this. IMO it will be next to impossible (even if the political will was there - remember Minister Woods, former Minister for Education, deal with the church authorities over liabilities in abuse cases) to get schools handed over to the Dept of Education - no-oe is going to give away their patronage rights easily.