Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?

_Dara_ · 14-10-2017 06:40PM

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

Not one 'catholic' school around here looks for baptism certs and all have students from many faiths and none. This generalisation that all schools require children to be baptised is misleading.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I guess by required they mean that those who are baptised get priority. To get preference, you need to be baptised. Not an issue in rural areas or small towns where there is plenty of space. More an issue where demand outstrips supply.

Permabear · 14-10-2017 06:47PM

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 14-10-2017 06:52PM

I'm not in any way religious and generally have a negative view of organised religions, but the OP doesn't make too much sense. Nearly every child is 'indoctrinated' into what is a part of their family - religion, sports teams, diet, and on and on. Though at the same time there should be some kind of limit - issues like refusing to teach children about biology for example should not be allowed.

14-10-2017 06:52PM

Pwindedd wrote: »

Because we don't sit children down and make them watch RTE news?

Pwindedd wrote: »

And most ADULTS are able to decipher this nonsense and make their own decisions based on their beliefs, either political or religious. Children's education on the other hand should be unbiased and free from agenda. It really is that simple.

eviltwin wrote: »

If parents are happy to let their child watch adverts so what?

But children are, in the real world, universally targeted by advertisers attempting to indoctrinate them. Now a kid doesn't "need" to say his prayers, he "needs" to buy certain products or else he's not cool etc. Each and every day children are targeted by corporations. Either "indoctrination" of children is "abuse"/wrong, or it's not. If it's wrong, it should not be allowed no matter whether it is done by the state or by a private corporation on a family's private tv. If abuse, to use the word employed by atheists in this thread to describe teaching religion in schools, happens in a private home, the state has the power to prosecute the offenders.

So, why is commercial indoctrination of children in the form of advertisements/pr/spin/"news" everywhere on behalf of very often powerful commercial entities acceptable to atheists, but religious indoctrination is unacceptable? Good indoctrination v. bad indoctrination?

Ask the vast majority of Irish parents which indoctrination puts more pressure on them, and the answer will be the capitalist/commercial/consumerist indoctrination and its incessant "buy, buy buy" brainwashing of children everywhere from the posters targeting children on the public roadside to advertisements targeting children on the radio in the local doctor's waiting room to the radio in the privacy of your own car.

14-10-2017 06:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Should it not be the other way around.

If you don't like the ethos of a school in a building provided by the Church, or a school building on land donated by the Church, go build your own.

If people who recoil like Vampires at the mere sight of a crucifix want a school devoid of all religion, well stay out of buildings provided by religious orders and open private non religious schools, completely paid for by the members.

Well, that is the key issue: finance. Personally, I think every state-funded school should be owned by the state and that the current system of the state not only financing salaries and running costs but new buildings on church-owned land is entirely unacceptable. It's a big wealth transfer from state to a wealthy private organisation every year. But it comes down to money, and the state doesn't want to use it to buy all these schools. Essentially, until the Irish public prioritise buying out the RCC and CofI etc from these schools, your argument is reasonable. The RCC hold all the cards until the state decides to spend its money to buy them out. Even if an argument could be made that pre-1922 Irish people gave that land/money for schools to the RCC in the absence of a native Irish government existing, in law the RCC owns those schools (with limited state rights reserved on buildings which were state funded).

14-10-2017 06:55PM

In the meantime, as people love to separate themselves and their children from others (hence the popularity of fee-charging religious schools), could atheists not set up their own, ahem, value-free schools that, ahem, do not engage in indoctrination of children? (Educate Together are not atheist schools)

The first "value-free" "indoctrination-free" schools in world history, right here in Ireland. Imagine.

14-10-2017 06:56PM

Out of interest, if the wishes of atheists came through and the RCC decided to close all their schools in Ireland in the next year, what would the Irish state do and how would most Irish people feel about it?

Grayson · 14-10-2017 07:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, if the wishes of atheists came through and the RCC decided to close all their schools in Ireland in the next year, what would the Irish state do and how would most Irish people feel about it?

No-one wants the schools to close. That's a daft idea. What people are saying is that schools should not be under religious patronage. It shouldn't be possible to be higher on a waiting list for a national school because of religion. And religion shouldn't be taught in a state funded school (Although I think it's ok for a religion to use school facilities after hours).

Permabear · 14-10-2017 07:07PM

This post has been deleted.

beefburrito · 14-10-2017 07:09PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Out of interest, if the wishes of atheists came through and the RCC decided to close all their schools in Ireland in the next year, what would the Irish state do and how would most Irish people feel about it?

You'll have the Atheists still complaining.
For a group of individuals who bring abortion, homosexuaity,sex before marriage and American politics into their debates anything is possible....

I'm impressed with the amount of people who are starting to see how the Atheists are always having more of a go at anything to moan about rather than the existence of God

Billy86 · 14-10-2017 07:10PM

Grayson wrote: »

No-one wants the schools to close. That's a daft idea. What people are saying is that schools should not be under religious patronage. It shouldn't be possible to be higher on a waiting list for a national school because of religion. And religion shouldn't be taught in a state funded school (Although I think it's ok for a religion to use school facilities after hours).

I'm OK with religion being taught in school, but it should be an equal spread of all the major religions and taught basically like a very basic theory class ("Christians people believe this, Jews believe that, Muslims believe this, the differences between Catholics and Protestants are this, that and the other..." and so on, as well as covering atheism and historical paganism).

I would regard that as quite worthwhile information that would also help kids with getting the idea that different people have different beliefs and so on. It should not however be what I remember in school which was solely Christianity, almost exclusively Catholic, and that it was pretty much all entirely true, historical fact. I had one teacher from the North who sell us all on the fact it was completely true, even the likes of the burning bush story, because we know there was a Jesus roaming around the world at the time, and "times were different back then". Times may have been different, but psychedelics were still psychedelics and the human body was still the human body.

beefburrito · 14-10-2017 07:13PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In the meantime, as people love to separate themselves and their children from others (hence the popularity of fee-charging religious schools), could atheists not set up their own, ahem, value-free schools that, ahem, do not engage in indoctrination of children? (Educate Together are not atheist schools)

The first "value-free" "indoctrination-free" schools in world history, right here in Ireland. Imagine.

The Atheists consider themselves to be more intelligent than anybody who's not an Atheist.

Since they're so advanced with a higher iq,how come they haven't come up with a plan.

Oh I forgot the Atheists are all individuals and not part of the Borg collective

Grayson · 14-10-2017 07:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I grew up in the midlands. 30 years ago I don't think there would have been a non catholic national school within 20 miles, maybe more. Now I think there's an educate together in the nearest big town. That's still religious though. I honestly don't know how far you would have to travel to find a school that didn't teach religion.

14-10-2017 07:16PM

Grayson wrote: »

No-one wants the schools to close. That's a daft idea. What people are saying is that schools should not be under religious patronage. It shouldn't be possible to be higher on a waiting list for a national school because of religion. And religion shouldn't be taught in a state funded school (Although I think it's ok for a religion to use school facilities after hours).

But legally, the private organisation that is the Roman Catholic Church (or more probably numerous RCC organisations) owns those schools, so they can do what they want with the properties. Neither the Irish people nor the Irish state (with the exception of rights to some state-financed buildings on Catholic Church land) can stop them.

It could be considered an act of kindness that the RCC is keeping these schools open - they could no doubt get a fortune from property developers for these lands in Dublin at the present time - because if the RCC decided to close them, the finances of the Irish state would have an enormous burden placed on them to buy them all out.

Grayson · 14-10-2017 07:17PM

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm OK with religion being taught in school, but it should be an equal spread of all the major religions and taught basically like a very basic theory class ("Christians people believe this, Jews believe that, Muslims believe this, the differences between Catholics and Protestants are this, that and the other..." and so on, as well as covering atheism and historical paganism).

I would regard that as quite worthwhile information that would also help kids with getting the idea that different people have different beliefs and so on. It should not however be what I remember in school which was solely Christianity, almost exclusively Catholic, and that it was pretty much all entirely true, historical fact. I had one teacher from the North who sell us all on the fact it was completely true, even the likes of the burning bush story, because we know there was a Jesus roaming around the world at the time, and "times were different back then". Times may have been different, but psychedelics were still psychedelics and the human body was still the human body.

I'm fine with that sort of class. Through in some foreign cultures too. We were woefully uneducated about world cultures and religions.
I just meant religion as it's taught here. ie Catholic catechism

eviltwin · 14-10-2017 07:17PM

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

Deleted User wrote: »

In the meantime, as people love to separate themselves and their children from others (hence the popularity of fee-charging religious schools), could atheists not set up their own, ahem, value-free schools that, ahem, do not engage in indoctrination of children? (Educate Together are not atheist schools)

The first "value-free" "indoctrination-free" schools in world history, right here in Ireland. Imagine.

What is an atheist school

One that teaches kids that god doesn't exist?

I'm an atheist, that doesn't automatically mean I am anti religion, I'm not. My kid goes to an ET, you won't find any complaint about them from me because I don't actually want my son going to school with kids who are from non religious families. I want him going to school with his mates, the kids from the neighbourhood no matter what faith they happen to be.

ETA: what do you mean by "value free" schools, do you think people who don't believe in God don't have a value system?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-10-2017 07:21PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I guess by required they mean that those who are baptised get priority. To get preference, you need to be baptised. Not an issue in rural areas or small towns where there is plenty of space. More an issue where demand outstrips supply.

But that is NOT the case for most schools. The entrance criteria of any school I have see - and that is many - do not stipulate religion at all. Catchment area, siblings in the schools, etc are used. You do not need to be baptised to get preference.

Grayson · 14-10-2017 07:29PM

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

But that is NOT the case for most schools. The entrance criteria of any school I have see - and that is many - do not stipulate religion at all. Catchment area, siblings in the schools, etc are used. You do not need to be baptised to get preference.

Baptism is a prerequisite. Catholic national schools are allowed discriminate on the basis of religion, and when over subscribed they do.

The_Valeyard · 14-10-2017 07:29PM

Grayson wrote: »

Baptism is a prerequisite. Catholic national schools are allowed discriminate on the basis of religion, and when over subscribed they do.

No they are not allowed anymore. That was changed.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-10-2017 07:31PM

Grayson wrote: »

Baptism is a prerequisite. Catholic national schools are allowed discriminate on the basis of religion, and when over subscribed they do.

Untrue. They may be allowed discriminate but none here enquire about religion at all.

evolving_doors · 14-10-2017 07:34PM

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

But that is NOT the case for most schools. The entrance criteria of any school I have see - and that is many - do not stipulate religion at all. Catchment area, siblings in the schools, etc are used. You do not need to be baptised to get preference.

Most schools aren't oversubscribed so the baptism requirement doesn't kick in.
Where they are it can apply.

Example...

ENROLMENT CRITERIA FOR CHILDREN SEEKING A PLACE IN JUNIOR INFANTS CLASS 2015/16
The following criteria will be used, in descending order of priority, to select children for enrolment:

Category 1

Catholic children, born on or before 30th June 2011, who are resident in the parish of [cut out] on date of enrolment.

Siblings of children already enrolled in Scoil [cut] born on or before 30th June 2011.

Children of present staff members, born on or before 30th June 2011

Catholic children who live outside the parish who do not have a Catholic school in their parish.

Places will be allocated to children in this group in order of date of birth.

Category 2

Non-Catholic children, born on or before 30th June 2011, who are resident in the parish of St [cut] on date of enrolment.

I'll pm you the school name if you like.

I'm a bit baffled by those who assert that 'it doesn't really happen that much'.
A wrong is still a wrong no matter how big or small.

eviltwin · 14-10-2017 07:34PM

I believe in some sort of God - indoctrination should be illegal.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No they are not allowed anymore. That was changed.

But they are still allowed to give places to those children who a baptised first aren't they?

The_Valeyard · 14-10-2017 07:36PM

eviltwin wrote: »

But they are still allowed to give places to those children who a baptised first aren't they?

Nope.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/baptism-barrier-to-end-as-bruton-plans-to-stop-catholic-schools-admitting-on-basis-of-religion-35875458.html

Only Muslim, Jewish and Protestant schools can do that now.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-10-2017 07:36PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

Most schools aren't oversubscribed so the baptism requirement doesn't kick in.
Where they are it can apply.

Example...

I'll pm you the school name if you like.

I'm a bit baffled by those who assert that 'it doesn't really happen that much'.
A wrong is still a wrong no matter how big or small.

That is that school. I said none around here have such a policy. What bit of that don't you get?

Rezident · 14-10-2017 07:45PM

I'm a Dublin cyclist so I know a lot of people hate cyclists. Should teaching children to cycle be illegal, while you're at it?

evolving_doors · 14-10-2017 07:47PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Nope.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/baptism-barrier-to-end-as-bruton-plans-to-stop-catholic-schools-admitting-on-basis-of-religion-35875458.html

Only Muslim, Jewish and Protestant schools can do that now.

Hold on they are just proposals... nothing has changed as far as I'm aware.

The proposals announced by Mr Bruton last night raises complex legal and constitutional issues which his officials have not yet worked out.

evolving_doors · 14-10-2017 07:51PM

Rezident wrote: »

I'm a Dublin cyclist so I know a lot of people hate cyclists. Should teaching children to cycle be illegal, while you're at it?

Eh!
Yes, teaching kids to cycle your magic fairy bike which doesn't exist...... that should be made illegal

_Dara_ · 14-10-2017 07:55PM

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

But that is NOT the case for most schools. The entrance criteria of any school I have see - and that is many - do not stipulate religion at all. Catchment area, siblings in the schools, etc are used. You do not need to be baptised to get preference.

It seems unlikely that a Catholic student would not get a place in a Catholic school if they were going for the last place with a Jewish/Muslim/atheist household child. As a thought experiment, how do you think the above scenario would pan out if there were no other variables? Live the same distance from the school and within the catchment area, same sibling situation. Equal in every other way. Which student gets the place?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 14-10-2017 08:02PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

It seems unlikely that a Catholic student would not get a place in a Catholic school if they were going for the last place with a Jewish/Muslim/atheist household child. As a thought experiment, how do you think the above scenario would pan out if there were no other variables? Live the same distance from the school and within the catchment area, same sibling situation. Equal in every other way. Which student gets the place?

From the enrolment policies I'm aware of (and these are binding) it would then be based on who put their names down first. There's not 'think' about it. The policy is published and must be adhered to.

I think people are assuming the situation in parts of Dublin applies nationwide, but not so.

_Dara_ · 14-10-2017 08:04PM

Bella Glamorous Pointless wrote: »

From the enrolment policies I'm aware of (and these are binding) it would then be based on who put their names down first. There's not 'think' about it. The policy is published and must be adhered to.

I think people are assuming the situation in parts of Dublin applies nationwide, but not so.

If it applies anywhere in the country, that’s unacceptable. Very parochial to not care if it doesn’t happen on your doorstep.

Should religious indoctrination of children be illegal?

Comments