Church and School

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-12-2017 02:26AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well you did come out with some grade-A bull**** even by AH standards, but this IS the kinda **** that happens when people like you put themselves down as "Catholic" on the bloody census forms!!

I was Baptised into the Roman Catholic Church, I followed the Catholic ethos through school right up to Marriage and I've passed the tradition onto my children and I identify as Catholic so guess what? That's right, I'm Catholic whether you like/agree/approve/accept it or not ..........

You said you don't believe in God - you are then, by definition, an athiest.

end of the road · 08-12-2017 02:56AM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The same way you would if you didn't want them near a zoo or a dairy farm. I'd imagine that experiences with both are part of the curriculum at some point in a child's education.

You need to learn what "non-denominational" means. Start by Googling "non-denominational church dublin" -and imagine what sort of school the parents who attend churches like these will want for their children. Then get actively involved in setting up Educate Together (or whatever takes your fancy) schools in your area.

much better to remove sectarianism and religious discrimination from existing schools instead.

MadDog76 · 08-12-2017 08:28AM

JupiterKid wrote: »

That’s your complete right. But Ireland is changing and the Catholic Church is in decline. If you regret that fact, too bad. More and more parents want their children to be brought up in a non denominanational, non sectarian environment.

78% of the population still identify as Catholic so you're the minority in this country, not me.

tringle · 08-12-2017 08:40AM

Steviesol wrote: »

Some interesting replies, and I guess that's my query, why should i have to take time off work to collect my kids from school that they legally have to go to, just because I don't want them near a church. I do not think it is right, and I hope it is changed to facilitate all children equally.

Because they don't legally have to go to that school or any school, they legally need to receive an education.

OK, for practical.reasons they are attending the local school...but not for legal reasons.
Changing our education system may be a good thing and taking religious education out of primary schools may be the way to go but right now that is not how this school is...which you knew when child started. It's one event that you do not want your child to attend so it's your responsibility to deal with it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-12-2017 10:06AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

78% of the population still identify as Catholic so you're the minority in this country, not me.

By your definition, that means that 78% of the population is athiest.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 11:08AM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

My advice is be careful how you deal with this matter with the school and be careful not to make a massive fuss out of it. You don't want to become known as the awkward parent. For yourself or your child.

Something about the mentality, while clearly well meant and pure, sits uncomfortably with me. I find myself wondering how many times social change happened because people were not cowed into silence by a fear of standing out from the crowd and the negative repercussions that entails.

Sure that has to be mitigated by the fact that some of those negative repercussions may not fall on the self, but ones child. So the argument can be made that one should not demonstrate or example for social change in a way that brings repercussions on another.

But in general the mentality of "Do not do what you think is right, for fear of becoming known" simply sits ill in my stomach.

That said.... how can we merge your position with my own and give the OP sound advice. I think maybe like this:

Steviesol wrote: »

I don't remember ever discussing Christmas Mass with the school. I did let them know we are a non religious family. Ideally I would like the school to mind them and take care of them until school is over. I don't see why I should have to come and take them out for an hour.

I think the issue here for your discussion, and the level of emotion you are going to see in people who talk past each other, is that your complaint comes as a coin with two sides.

The first side is that of whether we think schools should be packing children off to churches and masses in the first place. My position on that is clear from my posting history. I think that schools should be a place to teach ABOUT religions but not teach children they are of a religion, that any religion is particularly true, or to integrate into the curriculum methodologies of bringing them into that religion as members and believers.

Further while I try to educate my children on many issues, they are even aware of the basics of sex education by age 5/6 for example in a world where some parents worry about "the talk" with their 12 year olds, I do try to maintain their innocence on many things. Most notably mans inhumanity to man. And the images of blatant human torture on display in churches is one I do not think we need to be subjecting young children to.

The second side is that of the idea you HAVE put your child into a school that does field trips and one of those field trips is to mass. Your issue here should not be formulated in terms of "I do not want my child to be religious so I want the school to accommodate that" as this is more divisive than needs be as this thread shows.

Rather your issue should be couched in terms of "The school does field trips, and potentially there are field trips parents will want to exempt their child from, so what is the GENERAL solution to that issue.... and how can I avail of it in this particular case?". It does not have to be made into a religious issue at all. But an issue of GENERAL school procedure around field trips.

waterfaerie · 08-12-2017 11:27AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

78% of the population still identify as Catholic so you're the minority in this country, not me.

Firstly, as has been pointed out numerous times, that figure is a load of nonsense. It's bad enough being discriminated against by religious zealots without also being discriminated against because there are so many people who don't even believe in the whole thing but like to casually "identify" as catholic.

Secondly, even if 78% of the population truly were devout catholics, what about the other 22%? Do they not matter? Should they not exist or be taken into consideration at all?

I suppose it's a fundamental problem with democracy. If the majority are deluded and want something abhorrent, the minority have to just suck it up.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 11:46AM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

if catholics want to go off and establish a private catholic school then off they go

Even that would not be required if we worked towards a curriculum the content of which, and access to with, was entirely secular and blind to the race, gender, sex, sexuality, religion and creed of the people applying to it.

Then the patrons of that school could offer in the AFTER HOURS of providing for, and implementing, that curriculum modules on whatever it is their creed admonishes them to offer.

In much the same way as after my core school hours most kids went home, but some went off to learn rugby and I went off to learn martial arts, and others went off to speech and drama or chess club, and others went off to hang out with the creepy priest our school had who liked to get young boys into his office behind closed doors with the lure of free cigarettes that the management could smell several corridors away but somehow never appeared to action. And so on.

So schools that currently teach and indoctrinate into the catholic ethos on behalf of the parents could still very much do so at the behest of the parents, while all the other kids could simply go home and do their homework and living. And it could be done in a way that the state funds the facilities and the curriculum and everything to do with it, but then turns over the facilities to the patron, with them covering the cost and maintenance for it's use in a proper fashion during that period, to teach whatever their brand of patent nonsense happens to be.

In general hobbies are provided for in schools already, just like when I learned Martial arts in mine. Why should the particular hobby of religion be treated any different? Hobbies have club houses of their own but can still be facilitated after hours through school assets. Religions open their club houses during the week and most notably on Sundays, but I think school property could be turned over to facilitating that hobby after hours in much the same way too.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 11:46AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How do you make out that it doesn't represent the real demographic when the census figures suggests that it actually does?

Just a cautionary point however: the census figures do not reflect how many parents want their children to receive a religious education in schools.

What the census figures show is how many people identify themselves as Catholic. Nothing more. What they want for their children or, most specifically, how much of what they want for their children should be implemented in the schools, is simply not mentioned in the census figures.

Even if 100% of the people who did the census identified as "catholic" that would say NOTHING about what those people want taught in schools, or how.

But as I have said before, there are models one can envision which would address all the concerns parents like myself and the OP have, without one iota impacting on the education you want for your child.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There just isn't a one-size-fits-all education, and that's why home schooling is fast becoming a popular option where either the parents provide their children's education, or they employ a tutor to provide education for their children.

I have never really bought into the "If the solution is not perfect, it is not a solution" mentality you bring into many threads. I agree there is likely no one size fits ALL solution. But I can and have envisioned and described many solutions that I think would be FAR superior in addressing all the concerns parents have about religious indoctrination and education in schools, while vastly minimizing all the concerns YOU have in response to them.

There might be no perfect solution or one size fits all solution. But there certainly is superior solutions that, so far, I have seen no argument from you to counter. Mainly because they would address many of the concerns of many parents, without impinging one iota on the concerns you yourself have expressed about the patrons of a school being allowed to implement their ethos.

Imagine for me a system where the curriculum, and access to it, was ENTIRELY secular and pluralist. Patrons can open a school where and when they want, but they must implement that curriculum and every child must be educated to it's standards by age 16 or 18 or whatever. The school then takes state funding, and is unable to apply their own selection filters to access to that school (like the BMP we saw earlier where catholic kids were prioritized).

Then AFTER the core curriculum hours, when some kids merely go home, the state grants use of the facility (at fair and considered rental and maintenance costs) to the patron to teach whatever brand of nonsense they happen to be into. Parents can leave their kids in for those hours. The school can implement whatever curriculum, with whatever ethos, they want to the kids then. The facilities are theirs for the using.

Where would the problem be for you? Atheist parents get what they want. Muslim parents what they want. And you get exactly the education you want for your kid in all the ways you enter these threads demanding be protected.

And best thing is we pretty much have that model already at least in terms of the facilities being turned over to OTHER hobbies. I was able to stay back after school and learn martial arts. Others were able to learn rugby, speech and drama, how to smoke seemingly, and a host of other things that the parents of the kids could leave them in for. And the costs of that were shared between the patrons of the school, the people teaching whatever the hobby was, and the parents who paid some subscription fee (I think my parents gave me 2 Irish pounds a month for the 6 hours a week of martial arts I learned in Kenpo and the use of Bo Staff).

waterfaerie · 08-12-2017 12:19PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where would the problem be for you?

I would also like an answer to that question but you know you're not going to get it. He will nitpick one of your other points instead or go on some rambling tangent as a pretend answer to it.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 12:23PM

waterfaerie wrote: »

I would also like an answer to that question but you know you're not going to get it. He will nitpick one of your other points instead or go on some rambling tangent as a pretend answer to it.

Yeah the usual answer I get is to ignore my points about what I think the ideal would be, and instead make appeals to the current status quo, or to show that current law and legislation is different to what I espoused.

All of which A) I already know and

does not address the points I make.

But the KIND of system I describe (clearly it is a simplification of what would in execution be more complex) appears to address the vast majority of the concerns people have on both sides of the religion in schools issue.

Parents who do not want religious indoctrination in their children's education get what they want. People who feel they should have a right to a religious education for their child, and that patrons with a religious ethos should be able to implement that get what they want.

I genuinely do not see why it can not be the KIND of template ideal we could find common ground on and work towards together.

One eyed Jack · 08-12-2017 12:51PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I genuinely do not see why it can not be the KIND of template ideal we could find common ground on and work towards together.

The problem for me comes from the fact that you want me to be inconvenienced, solely to alleviate your inconvenience. You haven't yet presented a compelling argument as to why I should support your ideas, and the closest you appear to have come is that your ideas are superior.

Frankly, that may well be understandably true from your perspective, but it isn't from mine, and you should certainly be able to see that by now, and go back to the drawing board, and come up with a more compelling argument that addresses the concerns that people have, rather than appealing to their sense of fairness and equality from your perspective, which works to your advantage in furthering the type of society which you would wish to live in.

I'm fine with things as they are, why should I want them to change? Rather than insinuate that the majority are deluded or that there is a fundamental problem with representative democracy, it would surely be more honest to acknowledge that expecting the majority to work against their own interests to accommodate the minority is quite the tall order that would require an extraordinarily compelling argument on the part of that minority.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 12:56PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem for me comes from the fact that you want me to be inconvenienced, solely to alleviate your inconvenience.

Nothing to do with my inconvenience at all no, you are making that up. I do not even currently live in Ireland, and I am perfectly happy so far with how religion is implemented in my local catholic school. It is NOT integrated into the curriculum through the day for one. And the catholic class that IS run is done at the same time as a "general ethics" class. And parents choose one or the other. My 7 year old girl is in the later.

So "the problem for you" as you put it, is entirely fabricated.

The solution type I describe seems to be the best to accommodate you AND the people with a diversity of other concerns. Not to inconvenience you, or them, at all. And this is a good ideal to have if a pluralist and inclusive society is our goal. A goal you seemingly do not share.

The solution I describe STILL has you getting the education you want for your child in the SAME school as they would be getting it now. How on earth is that an inconvenience to you? So that too is, again, entirely fabricated by you.

The problems and inconveniences you describe exist in your head, not in my proposals.

Geuze · 08-12-2017 01:08PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Imagine for me a system where the curriculum, and access to it, was ENTIRELY secular and pluralist. Patrons can open a school where and when they want, but they must implement that curriculum and every child must be educated to it's standards by age 16 or 18 or whatever. The school then takes state funding, and is unable to apply their own selection filters to access to that school (like the BMP we saw earlier where catholic kids were prioritized).

Then AFTER the core curriculum hours, when some kids merely go home, the state grants use of the facility (at fair and considered rental and maintenance costs) to the patron to teach whatever brand of nonsense they happen to be into. Parents can leave their kids in for those hours. The school can implement whatever curriculum, with whatever ethos, they want to the kids then. The facilities are theirs for the using.

Where would the problem be for you? Atheist parents get what they want. Muslim parents what they want. And you get exactly the education you want for your kid in all the ways you enter these threads demanding be protected.

And best thing is we pretty much have that model already at least in terms of the facilities being turned over to OTHER hobbies. I was able to stay back after school and learn martial arts. Others were able to learn rugby, speech and drama, how to smoke seemingly, and a host of other things that the parents of the kids could leave them in for. And the costs of that were shared between the patrons of the school, the people teaching whatever the hobby was, and the parents who paid some subscription fee (I think my parents gave me 2 Irish pounds a month for the 6 hours a week of martial arts I learned in Kenpo and the use of Bo Staff).

I could support this model, but there are multiple issues with it.

Who would own the schools?

Who would be the patron of the schools?

If the State is the owner and patron, then it would have to buy all the schools off the existing patrons.

Also, I don't exactly see a queue of parents intent on enrolling their kids in the VEC/ETB system, so would there be support for State patronage of all schools?

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 01:15PM

Geuze wrote: »

I could support this model, but there are multiple issues with it.

I am not sure they are "issue" so much as details left out for the purposes of being brief (something I am oft accused of not being capable of hehehe).

You are entirely right in them being details that would need to be worked out for sure. But the core importance of my ideal is that the state is financing a curriculum that children have to meet by law (as always there are exceptions, but we currently have those already) that is entirely secular, and is accessed by a means that is entirely secular.

And if a patron body wishes to be considered a school, they must offer that curriculum, and a secular access to it that is blind to the race, creed, religion, gender, sexuality and other arbitrary boxes the parents happen to fall into.

And this modular system could be applied in a way that does not really HAVE to answer your questions in too much detail. It would be applied equally in a school owned by the state, or one owned by a church, or one owned by the Collison brothers should they suddenly return to Ireland and decide to spend their billion euro each on opening a school or two.

The KIND of ideal I envision (I keep saying KIND here as I am talking in very general terms without getting too into real specifics) basically says that whoever actually owns the school........ by very virtue of the fact they want to claim to be a school they would have to at minimum A) offer a completely secular curriculum at their core and

implement an access to that curriculum that is blind to the race, creed, religion, sexuality and so forth of the applicant.

The rest of your details are important when or if actually implementing such a system of course, but not really to the general discussion of that core ideal. Not to dodge your questions at all, lest I give that impression, but just to point out that it is a bit deep in the details for what is a mere adumbration of the TYPE of solution I would propose.

One eyed Jack · 08-12-2017 01:22PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing to do with my inconvenience at all no, you are making that up. I do not even currently live in Ireland, and I am perfectly happy so far with how religion is implemented in my local catholic school. It is NOT integrated into the curriculum through the day for one. And the catholic class that IS run is done at the same time as a "general ethics" class. And parents choose one or the other. My 7 year old girl is in the later.

So "the problem for you" as you put it, is entirely fabricated.

Ok, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean the inconvenience to you personally, I meant the inconvenience that the education system in Ireland currently presents for anyone who disagrees with it or would prefer to see it run differently, or run in a way that would bestow upon them a significant advantage, while imposing a significant disadvantage on everyone else.

The solution type I describe seems to be the best to accommodate you AND the people with a diversity of other concerns. Not to inconvenience you, or them, at all. And this is a good ideal to have if a pluralist and inclusive society is our goal. A goal you seemingly do not share.

So your suggested solution wouldn't best accommodate me at all then, which you're right, is my priority. You're also correct in pointing out that I do not share your perspective of a pluralist and inclusive society if the means to get to that end is the bland, dystopian pretension that everyone in society is the same as each other, and a bare minimum standard of education which accommodates and accounts for all is your starting point. I don't see that offering me any advantage?

The solution I describe STILL has you getting the education you want for your child in the SAME school as they would be getting it now. How on earth is that an inconvenience to you? So that too is, again, entirely fabricated by you.

The problems and inconveniences you describe exist in your head, not in my proposals.

Because you're suggesting that in a religious ethos school, their raison d'etre should be relegated to an after-school activity rather than an ethos which permeates the school day. I understand that you don't recognise the importance of religion to people who aren't you, and that's fine, grand, but for those people for whom tieir religion is an important part of their lives, it stands to reason that they would also want their children educated according to an education model which is in line with their philosophy or world view.

That's really not any different to your expression of your world view that you believe would accommodate and benefit everyone in society (or Irish society at least!). It's just a different perspective to yours is all, which is why I wonder how would your society even come about when there are numerous stakeholders involved in Irish education, all advocating for their particular vision of the future of Irish education.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 01:48PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I meant the inconvenience that the education system in Ireland currently presents for anyone who disagrees with it

I would not couch it in those terms though, as the utility of doing so would seemingly be little more than to have a "its all just your opinion" style response to it.

I do not view the current system as being an inconvenience to individuals. Rather I see it as being an inconvenience to the ideals of having an inclusive and pluralist and fair society. A goal that, while never 100% attainable, is worthy of striving towards.

And if a system can be built that simultaneously maximizes a move towards that goal, while minimizing the impact on people in the current system, then it is a move I think worthy of making.

I think I recall you on occasion claiming to be in software development. So the concept of improving a system to provide new and/or improved functionality..... while stringently trying to hold on to backward compatibility with previous versions and older systems........ will not be alien to you.

You ask in your previous post why you should want change? The fact is it has nothing to do with you WANTING change. It is everything to do with acknowledging change has ALREADY happened. We are no longer the near completely catholic country we were when current systems were formed.

Rather we have an ever increasing number of people identifying with no religion and/or no theistic or deistic beliefs. We are also getting people from other lands with other religions. Change is not something you need to want, it is something that has ALREADY HAPPENED.

So the question now is not whether YOU want change personally or not, but how (or if) we need to respond to the change that already has happened. Not just already happened but from study to study, census to census, year to year, continues to happen. And looks likely to go on happening.

And upgrading the system while maintaining backwards compatibility is, to my mind, the right thing to do here.

And I have explained not just that it is my position, but why. Your counter to it has been due to some perceived inconvenience and resistance to change, neither of which I am seeing mapping on to reality in any way.

TLDR: Change is not something I am asking that people like you choose or not choose. Change is already happening, I am discussing what our response to it should be. And a sentence like "I'm fine with things as they are, why should I want them to change?" misses that reality ENTIRELY.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

or would prefer to see it run differently, or run in a way that would bestow upon them a significant advantage, while imposing a significant disadvantage on everyone else.

What disadvantage though? You appear to simply be changing word from "inconvenience" to "disadvantage" to avoid the question about what that inconvenience is. Is it really, as your own words just suggested in this post, that the sole "inconvenience" you actually can articulate is that you do not want a pluralist and inclusive society, and my solution offers one?

Because as I said, the solution type I describe still gives you the education you want for your child which........ so far....... is the concern you have pretended to actually have when this issue comes up. I wonder if the mask is slipping.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

if the means to get to that end is the bland, dystopian pretension that everyone in society is the same as each other,

Then I can only point out the simple fact that you demonstrably have not actually bothered to read the solution I describe. Because it is the exact OPPOSITE of the picture you paint here in many many ways.

As I said the solution is built on the premise that is the exact opposite of us all being the same. It is built on the premise we are all, in fact, different. Remember the phrase pluralist and inclusive society? You do know that does NOT mean everyone is the same right? Or should we pause the conversation for a moment and have a tangential English Lesson before returning to the fray?

Rather what my system type does is recognize BOTH the shared humanity we all have, and the differences between us. And having a core curriculum directed at the former, and a modular extra-curricular system that celebrates the latter.

So once again, just like your comments about wanting a particular education for your child, my system is not only not compromised by your concerns, it DIRECTLY addresses and facilitates them. My system would celebrate the fact we are not all the same, recognize it, and allow you the education for your child you claim to want.

So I still have to ask, where is the problem? Other than your not wishing to live in a pluralist and inclusive society?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and a bare minimum standard of education which accommodates and accounts for all is your starting point. I don't see that offering me any advantage?

Interesting shift. You have gone from fabricated inconveniences and disadvantages (which you have not yet actually named) to a lack of ADVANTAGE. So I am glad I used the backwards compatibility analogy earlier. Because the ideal my kind of solution strives for is to AT MINIMUM leave you unaffected.

So while I think there would be advantages for you, even if we imagine there would not, and it left you entirely unaffected, then again I have to ask what your beef actually is.

A new software version that gives better functionality to new users and some existing users, but is backward compatible enough that the people who can not avail of the new functionality are otherwise unaffected by the upgrade......... is the 100% ideal software project. So why not here too?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because you're suggesting that in a religious ethos school, their raison d'etre should be relegated to an after-school activity rather than an ethos which permeates the school day.

Yes. But what actually is the issue with that? It is merely a change of how they go about providing the education you want for your child. Your child still gets that education however. So what is the difference to YOU?

Unless, and I do not want to put words in your mouth here but just a thought experiment, you are under the naive impression that there is only one way to teach any given set of concepts. There is not.

If it could be demonstrated that the standard of the results of educating your child in what you want your child to be educated in would somehow change by my proposal.... you would have a great point! But without that, once again I do not see your beef with the proposal.

In fact I think potentially it could IMPROVE it as I do not think the state is in the best position to dictate the curriculum for how a religion should be taught. The church is. So if they had free reign over that area of the curriculum then I suspect there is good reason to think they would do a BETTER job of it. And the education YOU want for YOUR child in particular would be improved by this.

Not to mention the classroom would likely be divested of the students not into those lessons and who could therefore detract from the quality of the results.

So there, that is at least two arguments why it would be BETTER for you. Other than your apparent fear of change, have you a similar argument as to why such a division would be WORSE?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand that you don't recognise the importance of religion to people who aren't you

Not true at all, which is why the system I propose not only understands that but strives to account for and facilitate it in the best way possible. Peoples hobbies can be MASSIVELY important to them. To the point it defines them and everything they say and do.

But you are not showing any part of the system type I have adumbrated that would in any way be detrimental to that fact, so instead you appear to just want to pretend I lack an understanding of it.

Estrellita · 08-12-2017 02:02PM

end of the road wrote: »

your family is of the catholic faith. are you though? do you believe in the faith? do you practice the religion in full?

Oh marvellous. Our faith is now being questioned. Let's ask the burning question here. Do you have your children in a non denominational school? Or is it a case of flinging them into the nearest one to the house? You're either against your children being part of a Catholic patronage school or you aren't.

or the school can do their job and educate them on relevant subjects, .

In a Catholic school, religion it is very relevant.

waterfaerie wrote: »

Oh, the system is obviously grand so, since you're happy with it.

I wouldn't say that. I've always been happy with Catholicism being at the back bone of my childrens education, if that is what you're implying. I was very happy with it being part of my own.

But there are too many faux Catholics in schools of Catholic patronage. A true Catholic knows the significance of a communion or confirmation. It's not about bouncy castles, parents getting píssed out their back gardens. It's most certainly not about sending your child to confirmation in leisure wear, or skirts up their holes. It's an absolute disgrace.

Maybe they would if they could?

Not my problem, quite frankly. Our family are not 'on paper' Catholics just to get them into a local school. We aren't hypocrites. If you feel strongly enough about no religion being taught, send the children to a non denominational school. If there isn't one nearby, fight for it instead of gassing about it. Too many arm chair protesters, not enough bite to match the bark.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 02:10PM

Estrellita wrote: »

Do you have your children in a non denominational school? Or is it a case of flinging them into the nearest one to the house? You're either against your children being part of a Catholic patronage school or you aren't.

That is the kind of black and white, true or false, thinking that I do not think sits usefully in discourse on such topics. It is not all or nothing. Many people have simultaneously disagreed with a system, while being part of the system.

For example there are laws on our books I strongly disagree with. I think they are awful, damaging, horrible laws. I still follow them. I work hard and constantly to change them. But I follow them.

If I were living in Ireland in the current system I would balance my issues with Catholicism and catholic schools, with the reality in which I found myself. In other words if I could find a school without the indoctrination policy and ethos I would certainly avail of it.

However my interest in getting AN education for my child trumps my other issues. And if there was no school compatible with the other aspects of the reality I existed in at that time..... I would take the school that was offered to me while continuing to fight for the improvements in that system that I believe in.

There are many large sacrifices I would make in that fight. But sacrificing my child getting AN education, in the face of not getting the IDEAL education, is not one of them. Not least because I do not feel that is my sacrifice to make.

One eyed Jack · 08-12-2017 02:47PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

ITLDR: Change is not something I am asking that people like you choose or not choose. Change is already happening, I am discussing what our response to it should be. And a sentence like "I'm fine with things as they are, why should I want them to change?" misses that reality ENTIRELY.

It doesn't though. In previous discussions you would talk about the education system that you envisaged we should all strive towards as though we had all previously agreed that your vision was indeed the best way forward. I didn't ever agree to anything like that.

The reality I see is that the current system already accommodates parents of other faiths and none, and just like in your proposed system, there are people who exist whom we should try and accommodate, but I think we actually can agree that no system is ever going to be able to please all of the people all of the time, and that's why I advocate the idea of more choices in education for parents, rather than restricting the choices parents already have.

So I still have to ask, where is the problem? Other than your not wishing to live in a pluralist and inclusive society?

Now there's no need to be twisting what I said. I said I do not want to live in what I see as your idea of what a pluralist and inclusive society should look like. The problem is that I just don't see why you would expect that I should want to relegate religious education to an after-school activity in a religious ethos school? I could understand how that would work in an ET school for example, but I would have no interest in having my child educated according to that model as I don't believe it is in their best interests.

Your suggested model of education already exists in Ireland, but the issue is that there are insufficient schools promoting this model, and the heads of the organisation are a bit miffed that their vision for the type of school they hoped to run, has become too popular among the parents of Catholic children, and indeed as you pointed out, the parents who do not wish to have their children enrolled in Catholic ethos schools.

A new software version that gives better functionality to new users and some existing users, but is backward compatible enough that the people who can not avail of the new functionality are otherwise unaffected by the upgrade......... is the 100% ideal software project. So why not here too?

It's a good thing you don't work in sales, because you're a terrible salesperson. What part of "I don't want your product or service" could you possibly be having difficulty with? I get calls from people every day wanting to sell me their latest products and services, only the other day I had a woman call to my door offering to sign me up for some pre-pay energy nonsense. I didn't have the time to walk her through the numerous reasons why I would not be availing of her product so I simply explained to her that I won't waste her time but I have no interest in her product. Her response? "So you like paying high energy bills then?". I was soeely tempted to invite her in and sit her down and show her where the economics of her argument made no sense whatsoever, but I figured it wasn't worth either of our time.

In the same way, it's just easier to politely say to you that I simply have no interest in what you're offering, and what are features you might imagine I should find useful, they don't add any value for me at all. I see no utility whatsoever in what you're proposing. If this were Dragons Den your pitch wouldn't have me the least bit excited or enthusiastic. To be perfectly honest, I think you need to work on your sales patter.

Not true at all, which is why the system I propose not only understands that but strives to account for and facilitate it in the best way possible. Peoples hobbies can be MASSIVELY important to them. To the point it defines them and everything they say and do.

But you are not showing any part of the system type I have adumbrated that would in any way be detrimental to that fact, so instead you appear to just want to pretend I lack an understanding of it.

I'm not pretending at all that you lack any understanding of religion. I said you don't recognise the importance of it to some people, and clearly you don't that you think religious education can be relegated to an after-school activity by way of attempting to accommodate those people.

Just how many more times do you have to be told "No!"

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 03:02PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't though.

It really does though. If you declare "I'm fine with things as they are, why should I want them to change?" this misses the fact change has happened and continues to be happening. Whether you want change or not. It is there. The question here, like everywhere in society, is how we should respond to that change.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

that's why I advocate the idea of more choices in education for parents, rather than restricting the choices parents already have.

Which is where the comedy lies for me, because that is EXACTLY what the system I am proposing advocates for too. By distilling out the core that is, and should be, common across the board and then building up an opt in modular system around that.

You then CONTINUE to give everyone the bits they insist they want (like your child getting the religious indoctrination you choose for them) while giving others a more modular ability to opt out of them. But maintaining a minimum core standard everyone should be held to regardless.

It is funny you keep throwing concerns at me, and things you advocate for, without seemingly notice the system I describe already addresses them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now there's no need to be twisting what I said.

Projecting your moves on me once again. You are the one twisting what others say here. For example your comment about a "bland, dystopian pretension that everyone in society is the same as each other" was the exact opposite of everything I espouse, and everything my system type is based on.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don't see why you would expect that I should want to relegate religious education to an after-school activity in a religious ethos school?

"After school activity" is a little misleading to my mind as a phrase though. It suggests a level of separation a little higher than what I am actually proposing. Though I recognize my comments about my after school martial arts is likely almost entirely to blame for that.

A better description / adumbration is to focus on what I described as a modular approach to education. Without distinction between "during" and "after" school activities.

Take the system we have now (or at least did when I was doing the leaving cert, I might be showing my age here). There was a core set of subjects students HAD to take (Maths, English, Irish). There was then a modular selection of a minimum of 4 other subjects (I took physics, biology, accounting, German myself). There was an optional selection of more however (I did applied mathematics and two others).

None of that modularisation or selection constitutes an "after school" activity. It was all very much in the purview of "during school activities". It was a larger curriculum built around a core minimum required curriculum.

What I propose, across primary and secondary education, is little more than a functional extension / alteration to that model. Much different to your summary of it.

I will leave the rest of your diatribe about sales phone calls alone for the irrelevant and off topic ad hominem filler that it was.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not pretending at all that you lack any understanding of religion.

I never said you did ???

Rather........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said you don't recognise the importance of it to some people

....... THAT is the part you are pretending. Because it simply is the exact opposite of the truth.

waterfaerie · 08-12-2017 03:18PM

Estrellita wrote: »

If you feel strongly enough about no religion being taught, send the children to a non denominational school. If there isn't one nearby, fight for it instead of gassing about it. Too many arm chair protesters, not enough bite to match the bark.

I don't know why you think you know anything about my situation. I have done and am doing plenty of fighting. It's insane that I or anyone else should have to fight for basic human rights but, there you go. Obviously you know more than the The United Nations and Council of Europe.

Estrellita wrote: »

Not my problem, quite frankly.

That says it all, really. There's no point in trying to communicate with people who think like you.

Sleepy · 08-12-2017 03:30PM

Simple: If the school don't have the resources to cater for those whose parents haven't authorised their religious indoctrination, they don't have the resources to attend such services.

The sooner we get a government who's prepared to remove the cancer of religion from our education system, the better. Hell, I'd even vote Sinn Fein if I believed they'd manage to do it before they wrecked the economy.

One eyed Jack · 08-12-2017 03:38PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question here, like everywhere in society, is how we should respond to that change.

We're responding just fine as far as I can see.

It is funny you keep throwing concerns at me, and things you advocate for, without seemingly notice the system I describe already addresses them.

I acknowledge that the system you're proposing addresses my concerns, but you appear to be refusing to acknowledge my point that the sustem we have already not only is one which provides me with a significant advantage over your proposed system, but also that your system would impose a significant disadvantage that I simply do not want.

I'm fine with things as they are now, why should I want what you are proposing? Instead of answering that question, you're simply telling me it would be better for me and it would be better for society because of all the reasons you come up with which are of no value to me whatsoever. That was the point of that particular anecdote, it wasn't an ad hom, it was simply to point out that your arguments are similar in that they are simply of no value to me. You're not offering me anything I want, and you're not able to come up with a compelling reason as to why I should want to buy into your proposal.

Projecting your moves on me once again. You are the one twisting what others say here. For example your comment about a "bland, dystopian pretension that everyone in society is the same as each other" was the exact opposite of everything I espouse, and everything my system type is based on.

Yes, it's the opposite of that to you, but to me, from my perspective, that's exactly what it appears you are suggesting.

"After school activity" is a little misleading to my mind as a phrase though. It suggests a level of separation a little higher than what I am actually proposing. Though I recognize my comments about my after school martial arts is likely almost entirely to blame for that.

A better description / adumbration is to focus on what I described as a modular approach to education. Without distinction between "during" and "after" school activities.

Take the system we have now (or at least did when I was doing the leaving cert, I might be showing my age here). There was a core set of subjects students HAD to take (Maths, English, Irish). There was then a modular selection of a minimum of 4 other subjects (I took physics, biology, accounting, German myself). There was an optional selection of more however (I did applied mathematics and two others).

]None of that modularisation or selection constitutes an "after school" activity. It was all very much in the purview of "during school activities". It was a larger curriculum built around a core minimum required curriculum.

What I propose, across primary and secondary education, is little more than a functional extension / alteration to that model. Much different to your summary of it.

This is incredibly confusing, particularly because you're suggesting that what you have often described as a hobby like any other hobby should not be part of any formal education, and now you're suggesting an integrated curriculum, which is exactly what we have already?

The national curriculum is built around the core curriculum of religious education in a religious ethos school, and understandably, the religious curriculum is built around the national curriculum in an ET model school. As I said, the model you're proposing already exists. It just needs to be expanded upon to offer parents more choices.

....... THAT is the part you are pretending. Because it simply is the exact opposite of the truth.

It's not the opposite of the truth when you insist that your proposed model of education is superior to the one that we currently have, and that you would be accommodating me and I should be satisfied with your accommodation, rather than the situation I have now where I am at a significant advantage, and the minority are accommodated.

Why would I want to give that up? That's all I'm asking you.

end of the road · 08-12-2017 03:56PM

Estrellita wrote: »

Oh marvellous. Our faith is now being questioned.

i'm questioning it because it's hard to know who is actually catholic these days and who isn't. this is about alacart catholics, not genuine catholics.

Estrellita wrote: »

In a Catholic school, religion it is very relevant.

i agree. i haven't said otherwise. but the state should not be expected to fund catholicism, given that a majority don't believe in it and only use it for convenience sake.

Estrellita wrote: »

I wouldn't say that. I've always been happy with Catholicism being at the back bone of my childrens education, if that is what you're implying. I was very happy with it being part of my own.

But there are too many faux Catholics in schools of Catholic patronage. A true Catholic knows the significance of a communion or confirmation. It's not about bouncy castles, parents getting píssed out their back gardens. It's most certainly not about sending your child to confirmation in leisure wear, or skirts up their holes. It's an absolute disgrace.

agreed, and that is our point here. we are funding a system that is based on a religion and ethos most people don't believe in, which is being used for convenience sake, because people are afraid to break away from catholicism.

Estrellita wrote: »

Not my problem, quite frankly. Our family are not 'on paper' Catholics just to get them into a local school. We aren't hypocrites. If you feel strongly enough about no religion being taught, send the children to a non denominational school. If there isn't one nearby, fight for it instead of gassing about it. Too many arm chair protesters, not enough bite to match the bark.

it is your problem as you are allowing religious discrimination to take place in our country. parents are fighting for an education that is inclusive to all. religious schooling is my problem as i'm paying for it, dispite only a minority being genuinely religious, and the vast majority of schools having a religious ethos. i'm funding religious discrimination and it sickens me.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 03:57PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We're responding just fine as far as I can see.

Because it is working for YOU. I however take a view beyond just myself and I notice that there are people it is not working for. And I notice there are ways we could change and improve the system to deal with them (and other future such changes) while not at all disenfranchising the current user base despite you flinging words like "inconvenience" and "disadvantage" around without being able to say what the inconveniences and disadvantages might actually be.

But the fact is we are more and more becoming a diverse nation. Catholic figures are slowly year on year going down. Minority groups, especially those identifying with no religion are going up. And the fact we are not dealing with that change well means no, we are not responding to change well.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the sustem we have already not only is one which provides me with a significant advantage over your proposed system, but also that your system would impose a significant disadvantage that I simply do not want.

So you keep saying. But my issue is all you are doing is SAYING it. You have not yet listed what your imagined disadvantage actually is. And I can not see how you can "acknowledge that the system I'm proposing addresses your concerns" and then say you are being disadvantaged by that system. That is a direct contradiction.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm fine with things as they are now, why should I want what you are proposing? Instead of answering that question, you're simply telling me it would be better for me and it would be better for society because of all the reasons you come up with which are of no value to me whatsoever.

I genuinely do not care if you WANT what I am proposing. If you scroll back to the first post I made to you today you will find what I asked was what issue you see with such a system. I asked where would the problem be for you with such a system. If the sum total of the answer you can muster is essentially "I just dont want it" then fine, that is an honest and clear answer. Just an intellectually empty one devoid of any real content.

Neither of us can tell the future of course, but my feeling as I watch the slowly changing census and other figures year on year..... and peoples consistently changing attitudes to religion......... is that such change is coming. Whether you like it or not. If I am wrong I am wrong of course. But if not then your choice (people like you, not you specifically) is to scream "I dont want it I dont want it" over and over......... or to consider the changes that are likely to come some day and voice your concerns with them now.

Plus I think it worth noticing the difference in our approaches to this conversation. You say I am "simply telling you" that such a system would be better for you? That is not so. YOU are simply telling ME it would not, without substance. I am not just telling you it would, but giving clear reasons why I think so too. That is no small difference.

That was the point of that particular anecdote, it wasn't an ad hom, it was simply to point out that your arguments are similar in that they are simply of no value to me. You're not offering me anything I want, and you're not able to come up with a compelling reason as to why I should want to buy into your proposal.

For example when you write a line like " I would have no interest in having my child educated according to that model as I don't believe it is in their best interests." there is no discussion or substance there. Why would it not be in their interests? I have given two arguments, which you did not address let alone rebut, as to why it could be. You have offered merely your assertion it would not be. And I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum. That is not discussion, that is soap boxing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it's the opposite of that to you, but to me, from my perspective, that's exactly what it appears you are suggesting.

And that is the dangers of communication. We can all take another person up wrong and think they are saying something that are not. Which is why when someone comes back and says "no that is not what I mean AT ALL" you should take their word for it, not double down on it. Let alone project your distortion of their words into an accusation they are distorting yours.

NOTHING about the system I propose is based on a "bland, dystopian pretension that everyone in society is the same as each other". So if you think that is what I am suggesting you should simply A) assure yourself you are wrong and

listen to my further explanation as to where your error lies. That is how conversation works.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is incredibly confusing, particularly because you're suggesting that what you have often described as a hobby like any other hobby should not be part of any formal education, and now you're suggesting an integrated curriculum, which is exactly what we have already?

I can not understand where your confusion lies as nothing I am proposing is an integrated curriculum. Perhaps you have a different understanding of that term than me, and the confusion stems from that?

What I mean by integrated curriculum is that religious education/indoctrination is not limited merely to a religious module in the day. Rather it permeates the rest of the curriculum and other subjects in it.

Whereas what I am proposing is a modular approach where there is a core curriculum free of that religious indoctrination or access....... and further modules on religion CAN be implemented by individual schools and accessed by individual parents.

The core however would be free of it, and nothing integrated into it at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would I want to give that up? That's all I'm asking you.

I am genuinely unsure A) which advantages you think you have and

more specifically which of them you think are absent in what I have proposed.

quickbeam · 08-12-2017 04:07PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You said you don't believe in God - you are then, by definition, an athiest.

Yeah, but a Catholic atheist!!

:pac:

quickbeam · 08-12-2017 04:09PM

Weejohnny wrote: »

They are doing what they are paid for. Teaching kids, not minding them you choose not to let your kids participate in one subject!

What kind of teaching will be going on when everyone's offsite at the church?? It's not about asking the school to be a child minding service. It's asking the school to provide an education for your child during school hours, ie what they're paid and commissioned to do.

One eyed Jack · 08-12-2017 04:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am genuinely unsure A) which advantages you think you have and more specifically which of them you think are absent in what I have proposed.

Ok since this appears to be the main contentious issue, I'm just going to address this part and hopefully you'll have a better understanding then of why I would have no interest in your proposal.

The first advantage I have in the current model of education provided for by the State is that I am provided with the opportunity to have my child educated according to my beliefs and values and religion is regarded as a fundamental part of their education, rather than the modular approach you're suggesting, because to my mind, religion is the underlying philosophy and world view, and education is the modular bolt-on so to speak.

That philosophy and world view is undermined by your approach, which is why I would see your approach as leaving me fundamentally disadvantaged.

The point is often made that if parents want a religious education for their children, they should pay for it privately. Again, I don't see why I should have to when the current model provides for said education through taxation. The point is often made that parents should provide their children's religious education outside of school, and restrict themselves to Sunday schools, etc, but that argument ignores the fact that parents are supposed to do this already, and that education in a formal setting is an add-on as such that is for the benefit of their community. As I am part of that community, it is an advantage for me that the type of education I want is already provided for.

I don't have any issue with people who do not share my faith, campaigning for schools for their community, I would fully encourage them to do so. Where I have an issue is with people trying to argue that a community to which I belong, should be excluded from receiving funding from the State to provide for the education of children belonging to my community.

I'm not entirely against your proposals nozz, they work for you and people who agree with you and that's great, but they don't work for me and I would simply have no interest in ever supporting such an education system that would fail to acknowledge the importance of religion to people who are religious.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2017 04:40PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am provided with the opportunity to have my child educated according to my beliefs and values and religion is regarded as a fundamental part of their education

And it still would/could be under a system like the one I imagine. It would just be implemented in such a way that opting in and out of it is functionally possible, and there is no discrimination in the access policy of the school as to who can apply and be selected.

There is nothing your child learns now that they would not or could not learn under such a proposed system.

And as I said they could potentially learn it BETTER as that area of their curriculum would not be in the hands of the state, but in the hands of the actual church/religion implementing it.

I see little or no sign that children in catholic schools today are actually learning Catholicism very well at all. Try it sometime. Take a general survey of people in the 12-18 age group on some basic aspects of catholic doctrine and you will likely find, as I have, that they have no idea. Hell even when I was cutting up catholic crackers for science I met people in three very distinct and very diverse groups of thinking on what catholic doctrine claims about the Transubstantiation process / ceremony.

So if parents really want their children indoctrinated into Catholicism I see little suggesting the current system is doing that well at all, and I see many arguments as to why my system would allow them to do it better. 2 of which I gave already without your reply.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would simply have no interest in ever supporting such an education system that would fail to acknowledge the importance of religion to people who are religious.

Then isn't it great that I am proposing a system that DOES acknowledge the importance of religion to people who are religious. Yay me.

Church and School

Comments