Sex Tips from the Bishops for Teenagers

KevRossi wrote: »

No, schools are established to provide an education of which religion and sex education is a part. It is not the basis of an education. You're thinking of a Madhhabad.

And if my tax money is paid to provide a national school then I'd expect something as basic as sex education to be without religous influence. What next? Dinosaurs didn't exist as God only created the earth 8,000 years ago?

Schools are established by patron bodies to provide education according to their own ethos, whatever their ethos may be, whether it’s religious or secular in nature. The basis upon which they are paid by the State is to teach the National curriculum, on top of their own curriculum. That’s the basis on which when it comes to relationships and sex education, the Department of Education leaves it up to schools to decide at a local level amongst themselves how relationships and sex education are to be taught, and parents are not obligated to have their children participate in either religion or sex education classes.

Your taxes aren’t providing anything. It’s the Government who are elected by the people who determine how funds are to be distributed on behalf of the State, in furtherance of the common good of Irish society. That’s why parents don’t have to pay for their children’s education, because it is for the common good of Irish society that children are educated. Service providers who provide education services to the State have to be paid, same as any other service provider providing a service to the State. Voluntary bodies managing the schools take an awful lot of the administrative headaches off Government, and save the State an absolute fortune from not having to pay civil servants to manage schools.

So you’re left with two choices - everyone with children funds the education of their own children, and everyone who pays tax continues to pay the same tax they were paying already, or, establish your own patron body, which is easy to do and considering it’s as popular as you claim, that shouldn’t be an issue, and apply to the Department of Education to be considered eligible to provide education on your terms first, and their terms second (that is, to provide education according to your own ethos first, and teach the national curriculum second). Finding volunteers to manage the schools you establish also shouldn’t be an issue if the demand is there as you’re suggesting.

Pandiculation wrote: »

You’ve conducted a survey and have some kind of analysis to back that up or is it just a swipe at Educate Together?

I know the local one to me has a bad rep and have heard multiple stories of how badly it is run. Bullying allegations etc etc. Indiscipline. Some students allowed to run riot. Poor back up from management

My general point is that educate together does not automatically mean good just the same as catholic schools do not automatically mean bad.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Schools are established by patron bodies to provide education according to their own ethos, whatever their ethos may be, whether it’s religious or secular in nature. The basis upon which they are paid by the State is to teach the National curriculum, on top of their own curriculum. That’s the basis on which when it comes to relationships and sex education, the Department of Education leaves it up to schools to decide at a local level amongst themselves how relationships and sex education are to be taught, and parents are not obligated to have their children participate in either religion or sex education classes.

Your taxes aren’t providing anything. It’s the Government who are elected by the people who determine how funds are to be distributed on behalf of the State, in furtherance of the common good of Irish society. That’s why parents don’t have to pay for their children’s education, because it is for the common good of Irish society that children are educated. Service providers who provide education services to the State have to be paid, same as any other service provider providing a service to the State. Voluntary bodies managing the schools take an awful lot of the administrative headaches off Government, and save the State an absolute fortune from not having to pay civil servants to manage schools.

So you’re left with two choices - everyone with children funds the education of their own children, and everyone who pays tax continues to pay the same tax they were paying already, or, establish your own patron body, which is easy to do and considering it’s as popular as you claim, that shouldn’t be an issue, and apply to the Department of Education to be considered eligible to provide education on your terms first, and their terms second (that is, to provide education according to your own ethos first, and teach the national curriculum second). Finding volunteers to manage the schools you establish also shouldn’t be an issue if the demand is there as you’re suggesting.

some top notch double speak there

Pandiculation wrote: »

I gave up on your post at that point. Who exactly do you imagine pays for all these things?

If you’d continued to the next line, your question is answered rather than expecting I should have to repeat myself because you couldn’t be arsed.

lawred2 wrote: »

some top notch double speak there

It’s not doublespeak at all. Kev would pay the same tax they already do regardless of how the Government chooses to spend it’s money. As a proportion of revenue the Exchequer takes in, Kev’s tax contributions as an individual wouldn’t even cover the cost of one child’s education, let alone the education of the nation’s children.

lawred2 wrote: »

of course it's not

but has someone suggested it is?

I was replying to a poster who had a point about conservative bubbles, its as if they don't seem to realise Ireland is a country that passed the same-sex referendum and has abortion rights for example.

This is not a cohort of backward conservative people hiding in the bushes waiting to jump out, ideas like that appear to be linked to those who are extrapolating their issues onto the education they had.

Religion-free mixed schools are an entirely good idea but are not a panacea for all ills.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why should they have to pay for it? You’re certainly not paying for it. Free education is provided for by the State, and the State doesn’t give a leg up to any religion either, it hasn’t done since 1973.

Yes I am paying for it. And you're paying for it. Everyone else is paying for it too.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Schools are established by patron bodies to provide education according to their own ethos, whatever their ethos may be, whether it’s religious or secular in nature. The basis upon which they are paid by the State is to teach the National curriculum, on top of their own curriculum. That’s the basis on which when it comes to relationships and sex education, the Department of Education leaves it up to schools to decide at a local level amongst themselves how relationships and sex education are to be taught, and parents are not obligated to have their children participate in either religion or sex education classes.

Your taxes aren’t providing anything. It’s the Government who are elected by the people who determine how funds are to be distributed on behalf of the State, in furtherance of the common good of Irish society. That’s why parents don’t have to pay for their children’s education, because it is for the common good of Irish society that children are educated. Service providers who provide education services to the State have to be paid, same as any other service provider providing a service to the State. Voluntary bodies managing the schools take an awful lot of the administrative headaches off Government, and save the State an absolute fortune from not having to pay civil servants to manage schools.

So you’re left with two choices - everyone with children funds the education of their own children, and everyone who pays tax continues to pay the same tax they were paying already, or, establish your own patron body, which is easy to do and considering it’s as popular as you claim, that shouldn’t be an issue, and apply to the Department of Education to be considered eligible to provide education on your terms first, and their terms second (that is, to provide education according to your own ethos first, and teach the national curriculum second). Finding volunteers to manage the schools you establish also shouldn’t be an issue if the demand is there as you’re suggesting.

Or we have the third choice which is already going on: divestment of schools from the RCC.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

That’s never going to happen

There’s a majority of Irish parents who freely choose catholic schools over other options

I’m all for this freedom of choice

Majority of parents have non-catholic choices? That's news to literally everyone.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Yes I am paying for it. And you're paying for it. Everyone else is paying for it too.

No you’re not. Neither am I, nor is anyone else paying for education. Taxpayers pay taxes, that’s about it. They do that anyway. It’s Government who decide how revenue they receive is spent, and how much they need to take in to cover the cost of providing for services such as education, healthcare and so on for the common good of Irish society. There is no discrimination in the provision for educating the nation’s children between people who pay tax and those who don’t, which is a good thing for Irish society as a whole, as compared to everyone being expected to pay for their own children’s education. I wouldn’t mind as I can afford it, many people simply couldn’t.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Or we have the third choice which is already going on: divestment of schools from the RCC.

That’s not a choice individuals have though? Taxpayers or not.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Majority of parents have non-catholic choices? That's news to literally everyone.

Have you read your Constitution lately? Specifically Article 42 as it relates to education -


1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3.1°:The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

3.2°:The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4:The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Aren't we all free to set up our own schools? I love the "feck the church but we aren't arsed set up our own" attitude.

Feisar wrote: »

Aren't we all free to set up our own schools? I love the "feck the church but we aren't arsed set up our own" attitude.

Ah but there's the problem, parents want to outsource sex education along with everything else to schools but then complain it doesn't reflect their values.

Surely most children get far more exposure to their parents and learn far more from them than ever they do in school particularly in terms of values and how to behave in society.

john_fe12020 wrote: »

But the main point here, why is the Church, who are evidently anti (or at least a hard sceptic) of science, involved in orientating a science based topic - reproduction?!

I don't know about other churches, but the Catholic church isn't anti-science.

https://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+scientists+in+history&oq=catholic+scient&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l9.5703j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

We don’t need to. We’ve already put enough money into them to run them, build them and maintain them for the last 100 years to more than cover the cost of the land they sit on.

But you dont own the land and therefore dont own the schools.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

This tax thing is extreme petty semantics. We pay taxes. The taxes pay for stuff. Ergo, we pay for stuff.

It’s not semantics, it’s fact - we don’t pay for education.

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

That article is fine aspirational stuff. The facts of the matter are that in vast swaths of the country the choice outlined in section 3.1 doesn't exist in practice because all schools in the area are catholic ethos.

The fact is that the choice does exist - send your children to a school who’s ethos you don’t share, or don’t. Parents can’t be forced to, as though they have no choice. The State only requires that children receive a minimum standard of education.