Religion and Engaging with the Teacher

It's not my skin is the issue here. It's your trying to make this about skin colour, because the cracks in your actual argument are being pointed out, and you've resorted to very thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.

There is about as much basis to your accusation as if I said you were only saying it to hide your own racism. It would be no less ludicrous to suggest so.

91 hours could be used in a much more productive way than religious indoctrination and well you know it.

Not to mention the 1000s (and growing) of children who are losing 91 hours of any education because they've opted out of the indoctrination.

A disgrace.

It's not even 10% though. Most of the 10% non-RC schools are Church of Ireland.

Yes a fundamental tenet.

Here's a quote from the 2nd Vatican Council. If you are a Catholic , you'll appreciate how important a document it is:

“The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants). Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.”

Gibberish.

To be fair, that question might be better directed to the original poster who started this thread looking for advice on how to extricate themselves from a situation that they had gotten themselves into through nobody else’s fault but their own.

@[Deleted User] the idea of “no taxation without representation” applies to the idea of representation in parliament, not representation in education. Essentially - it doesn’t matter what anyone does or doesn’t pay in taxes, Ireland’s tax system is not based on hypothecation. Receipts by the Exchequer are not ring-fenced by Government for any specific purposes in the way you think. It’s also untrue to suggest that the State is practicing discrimination by providing for education in the way it does, because it does not discriminate between patron bodies who meet the criteria to qualify for funding.

Part of the issues stem from the fact that people who wish to be represented in politics where these decisions are made, just aren’t very well represented, and the odd politician who does take it upon themselves to represent them, just doesn’t give a very effective representation of themselves. I am of course referring to John Halligan. By his own actions he makes it impossible for anyone to take him seriously, which is unfortunate for the people he claims to represent -

(‘Incompetence’ doesn’t begin to describe him tbh)

The other issue is that parents motivations and ideals for their own children, do not align so neatly with other peoples aspirations for children who aren’t theirs. If a parent says to me they’re not religious themselves but they want their children to make their Confirmation, that’s that parents own business. I’m not particularly interested or concerned enough to wish to make further inquiries. I meet parents all the time who aren’t religious themselves, and they don’t describe themselves as atheist either (whatever PR issues the various organised religions have, the idea of describing themselves as atheist is perceived even more negatively), with most parents I’ve known who aren’t religious simply describing themselves as non-religious.

That leads into the third greatest issue which is that for parents who do not wish to support or have their children participate in any religious model of education, and also do not wish to support or have their children participate in the Educate Together model of education, their options are even more limited again, and even schools which are under the patronage of the Minister for Education (what would be recognised as State schools in other countries), even they do not provide a means for parents to completely avoid their children being exposed to religion.

So while I do support the expansion of options for parents in the education of their own children according to their values, world view or philosophy; in my view that shouldn’t come at the expense of depriving other parents of those same equal opportunities for how they wish for their children to be educated. The issue is that the necessary public support just isn’t there to support minority views, which leads to situations forming of an ‘unholy alliance’ as it were (pardon the pun), between groups of people with fundamentally different values, world views or philosophies, in order to achieve a common aim -

Problem is, there simply aren’t enough people who can agree on one single aim that they could actually operate effectively together to achieve that single aim on a national scale, and so the current situation will continue as it is for the foreseeable future as the alternatives just aren’t any more popular for individuals various reasons known only to themselves.

1) ALL ET schools are oversubscribed, upmarket, downmarket, nomarket - they all have a long queue of parents who don't want their children to be indoctrinated. And of course, as explained repeatedly, if I go outside of my own area, I'll generally be at the back of the queue because of catchment area rules. If again you are suggesting that I move house, that is STILL no guarantee of a place, so I could well move house and STILL find myself outside of the numbers for the ET school.

2) 'Take them out' for every prayer, for every alter, for every 'is there anything to be said for another Mass' event, for every nativity play, for every school choir event. My children (and the children of those who don't like the idea of indoctrination) deserve a full, rounded education, including cultural and social events. They're not 2nd class students, getting a few crumbs dropped from the table. They should get the same education, the same participation in school events - which should of course be designed to be inclusive from the outset.

3) Do 'a bit of organising' in the vague hope of following the path of one unnamed school from 10-15 years ago, which just might end up in a school being available in 10-15 years time. Which school are you referring to here? A solution that would work for my children rather than my grandchildren would be great.

4) Let them eat cake. Seriously, your solution to a problem with schooling to stop State provision of schooling for those kids all together? We're looking for solutions, not punishments.

5) 'Plan ahead' - would be great if you can provide a crystal ball to let me know where the schools will be in 5-10 years time, and what the enrolment policies will be, and where I will come. Otherwise, you're asking to me to make what is probably the most important decision any family can make, the biggest purchase of their lives, on the gamble of an available place? All because you're aiding and abetting the church to dig their heels in and retain control of education.

6) 'Stop being so dramatic' is the classic bully response. If you don't want drama, then get the church out of State schools. Why don't YOU stop being so dramatic and arrange your religious instruction on your own time and your own expense?

7) That's 'solution' 5 again. It's a huge gamble. You're asking families to gamble everything because you want to retain control of education to impose your own religion on all others.

Are there any actual solutions out there? Here's one - get the churches out of our schools.

For the record I don't think religion should be in public funded schools. But I'm past caring.

Technically for anyone that opts out of religion class, the state meets 90% of its obligation to provide education.

That's some waffle. You don't want them to be given any education pertaining to religion, yet you're going to moan that they aren't being given a full education if they aren't included 🤨

It's like trying to deal with a 2 year old. They don't want to sit in the high chair so will scream and cry to get out of it, but if you try to take them out of it, they'll scream and cry because you are taking them out of it.

All you are doing is trying, and failing, to mask your own intolerance and bigotry here. It's not that you actually care about your child being taught about religions, you just want to impose your own will onto children of others out os some weird bitterness. If you want your child to attend the class to learn about religion you can leave them in the class. If you want to take them out, you can. You make that choice.

You say:

ET's are oversubscribed => parents want non-denominational schools

But we also have that Catholic schools are oversubscribed. Therefore by your own logic:

Denominations schools are oversubscribed => parents want denominational schools

I'll let you in on a little secret. For 99.99% of cases, a school that is there today will also be there in 5-10 years. You don't need to be imagining things about crystal balls. Stop making excuses for being lazy and making life decisions that have obvious and predictable consequences that you already know in advance that you later won't like.

The indoctrination doesn’t take place in school. The indoctrination takes place at home. Religious instruction takes place at school. You know this.

Do you blame the state if parents don't send their kids to school too? The state provides the education. If if it's not taken up, or if it's taken up elsewhere, that's not the state's fault or problem.

They know well that the more they claim, the more political influence they have.

Weekly attendance to mass is a fundamental part of Catholicism

The reality is that things that would have been regarded as absolutely forbidden 40 years ago are now commonplace in a desperate effort to maintain numbers; mothers getting married in church, mixed marriages, 2nd marriages, unbaptised children making their communions, atheists being married in non-religious ceremonies in catholic churches etc.

Of course not.

I DO blame the state for the ridiculous amount of time allocated to the teaching of religion; far in excess of other European countries.