Church and School

Zebra3 wrote: »

I thought the idea of schools was to educate children not fill their heads with utter nonsense.

Too true.

I high-tailed it out of there when I was 13 and they started getting me to do sums with letters of the alphabet. Never looked back.

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve just been told by a teacher what the situation is but here you are arguing with facts as usual and ignoring any straight questions put to you earlier in the thread because those questions don’t suit you.

i haven't argued with facts. i have argued against the idea that the school can abdecate from it's responsibility to non-religious children on school time. parents are legally obligated to send their children to school unless they are home schooling them. yet because those children are non-religious, the parents are expected to take them out of school because the rest of the school is going on a non-educational but religious related activity, which is non-essential and which is related to a religion most don't actually believe in anyway.
so these children are losing time where they could be learning something useful. i'm sorry but that is not exceptible to me. yes granted it will never effect me, not having children and no plans to do so, but regardless it's still wrong as far as i'm concerned and children shouldn't be losing out because of religion, especially when belief in a religion is in a small minority but is used by a majority for convenience reasons.

end of the road wrote: »

not cop-out bs but fact. removal of children from practices that should not be taking place in a place of education, practices which are not subscribed to or believed in by most people, is not a preference but a necessity.

Says you. I sent my children to Catholic schools because our family is of the Catholic faith. Why don't you send your children to the non religion specific schools instead of trying to force change within a school that religion specific parents want to send their children to? Or you could just collect the children while religious practices take place. Very, very simple.

Steviesol wrote: »

I was asking of anyone has experience with this and school. I don't need a lecture. Thanks

Then I will apologise, it wasn't meant as a lecture.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If the school is preaching Catholicism, then surely it is the Church's responsibilty to pay for extra staff? Said staff could take the kids to mass while the abstainers could stay in class with the teachers.

How do you make that out? The staff that are there aren't paid for by the Church in the first place. The number of staff provided to a school is based upon the number of pupils in the school, so that's why there isn't any 'spare' staff, in any school.

The whole idea of educating children and providing a school for their education is that parents would be encouraged to be involved in the running of the school whether it's as members of the board of management or the parents committee, supporting the school, rather than just regarding the school as a glorified day-care centre for their offspring.

The successful running of a school and the education of children requires that parents make an effort too, rather than just foist all the responsibility for the education of their children onto the school. In cases like those outlined in the opening post, compromises are often easily reached between the parents and the school all working together with the interests of the education of their children in mind, rather than trying to create unnecessary tension and resentment.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you make that out? The staff that are there aren't paid for by the Church in the first place. The number of staff provided to a school is based upon the number of pupils in the school, so that's why there isn't any 'spare' staff, in any school.

The teaching of a religious ethos is the responsibility of said religion, not the state. That's how I make that out.

The whole idea of educating children and providing a school for their education is that parents would be encouraged to be involved in the running of the school whether it's as members of the board of management or the parents committee, supporting the school, rather than just regarding the school as a glorified day-care centre for their offspring.

The successful running of a school and the education of children requires that parents make an effort too, rather than just foist all the responsibility for the education of their children onto the school. In cases like those outlined in the opening post, compromises are often easily reached between the parents and the school all working together with the interests of the education of their children in mind, rather than trying to create unnecessary tension and resentment.

I'm not saying anyone provide any extra staff. I'm saying let the church provide the religious education means. When I was a kid, we had a priest or one of two nuns come in form the local church once in a while and I don't see why they can take the kids to mass while the regular teacher stays begind with the abstaining kids.

If extra staff is needed, why shouldn't the church fund it?

The parental reference is irrelevant - most parents work during school hours and support the school in off hours - and they aren't needed in this case.

Estrellita wrote: »

Says you. I sent my children to Catholic schools because our family is of the Catholic faith.

your family is of the catholic faith. are you though? do you believe in the faith? do you practice the religion in full? if you are a genuine catholic that's fine but you are in a minority. so therefore the state should not be funding your religious classes.

Estrellita wrote: »

Why don't you send your children to the non religion specific schools instead of trying to force change within a school that religion specific parents want to send their children to?

it's not the job of other parents to send their children to non-religious schools which may be hours away to facilitate religious discrimination. a minority receiving preferential treatment at the expence of the tax payer, especially based on religion, is sickening and it must end. religious discrimination has been the bain of this country and it must end.

Estrellita wrote: »

Or you could just collect the children while religious practices take place. Very, very simple.

or the school can do their job and educate them on relevant subjects, like the tax payers are paying them to do. the parents have a legal obligation to send children to school unless they home school them, and the school has a legal obligation to provide a sufficient and high standard of education to those children. very, very simple.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If the school is preaching Catholicism, then surely it is the Church's responsibilty to pay for extra staff? Said staff could take the kids to mass while the abstainers could stay in class with the teachers.

The school doesn’t need extra staff. If parents don’t want children to participate in a school activity then the parent must arrange for the child to be minded elsewhere. This has already been clarified on this thread by a teacher.
It’s a Catholic school. Why on earth should “the Church” pay the childminding feea of non Catholics who enrolled their children in the Catholic school ? It’s not the churches fault that you didn’t move to a town with a non religious school, and it’s not the fault of the church that the state doesn’t build more non religious schools.
Your asking Dunnes stores to recompense customers who came in and found no Tesco products on the shelves.
Same thing.

Estrellita wrote: »

Some people only see things their own way, or the way it suits them best.

Estrellita wrote: »

Says you. I sent my children to Catholic schools because our family is of the Catholic faith. Why don't you send your children to the non religion specific schools instead of trying to force change within a school that religion specific parents want to send their children to? Or you could just collect the children while religious practices take place. Very, very simple.

Can't you see the irony here? We all pay for education in our national schools, yet the vast majority of schools are Catholic, and that doesn’t reflect the real demographic. Many people don’t have a real choice regarding their child’s school. Therefore if you happen to be catholic, you are getting far better service for your taxes than your non catholic neighbour. That’s favouritism/discrimination on the basis of religion.
Imagine you live in an area where all of the schools (or at least the ones that are a viable option for you) practice Scientology. Imagine these schools are state funded through your taxes. How comfortable does that make you feel? How comfortable do you feel when the school are attending a Scientology ‘service’ or workshop - not just as a cultural visit like the synagogue /mosque examples earlier - but to participate. Do you think it’s fair that you must either let your child attend, or take time off work (if that’s even possible - it’s not for many) to take your child home? There’s no equality there.
School should be for school. Home and church should be for religion.

splinter65 wrote: »

And where are the State going to get the money to build schools when the catholic owned schools lock up their property on their land?

That’s a problem alright. Although the truth of it is that the state has paid for most of the school infrastructure in this country, but allowed the churches to retain ownership. It’s the same issue as the NMH /Vincent’s debacle. While legally they belong to the church, morally they belong to the people.

The Vincentian fathers have recently sold a large tranche of land at st Paula college in raheny to developers. This land includes much of the schools playing pitches, which are also used by the local sports clubs. The land was part of st Anne’s Park, and was sold to the fathers for the purpose of providing playing fields for the students at a nominal cost of I think £1. So now the school has lost most of its playing fields, the local community has lost access to the pitches, and the fathers are millions of euros richer. Legally that’s fine. Morally though?

splinter65 wrote: »

The school doesn’t need extra staff. If parents don’t want children to participate in a school activity then the parent must arrange for the child to be minded elsewhere. This has already been clarified on this thread by a teacher.
It’s a Catholic school. Why on earth should “the Church” pay the childminding feea of non Catholics who enrolled their children in the Catholic school ? It’s not the churches fault that you didn’t move to a town with a non religious school, and it’s not the fault of the church that the state doesn’t build more non religious schools.
Your asking Dunnes stores to recompense customers who came in and found no Tesco products on the shelves.
Same thing.

According to byhookorbycrook (who I quoted initially) extra staff are needed. And she, as far as I know, is a teacher and would know.

If the parents are tax-payers they have every right to avail of said services and not be expected to put the time in themselves. You want anaologies? How about "the doctor can't perform your operation today because he's at mass and it's up to you to fund your own replacement doctor?" Because that's exactly what's been asked: you paid your taxes for this service, but we can't provide, tough ****, go get your own.

The "Catholic School" argument has been done to death: there are plenty of times when said school is the only option. If a school wants State funding, it provides for ALL pupils in its community. If it wants the Dept of Education to staff your school, then it is the Dept of Education who dictates what these teachers teach, not its private concerns.

Why should the tax payer fund a religious organisation's requiements?

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t know what statistics you are basing your “most people” on . I think you probably mean “most people” you know personally.
The Census says 78% identify as Catholic.
That puts your “most people” in the bin.

Those 78% don't all follow church teaching and don't necessarily want a Catholic education for their children. Catholicism is a very layered thing, not all people have the same beliefs or respect of the rules, we might have a large population who identify as Catholic but they are not all part of one homogeneous group.