Removing religious influence from schools not in my remit, says Minister

Mike 1972 · 29-12-2009 11:12PM

The French ban on individual religious symbols is an excellent example of the taking a good idea to its most ludicrous extremes.

If kids want to wear crucifixes, headscarfs, turbans etc it shouldnt be an issue. If the walls of classrooms in a state funded school have those symbols then that is an entirely different matter.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

it's about abolishing a system that can legally discriminate against little children getting something as feckin' basic as an education at the local state funded school. Gah! :mad:

Surely its only a matter of time before the state finds itself facing a constitutional challenge on this issue ?

Ickle Magoo · 29-12-2009 11:18PM

Groe wrote: »

I know what your saying but I'm just giving my opinion and talking about my experiences. I'm only 15, I haven't experienced the bigger picture. Think of it this way, everyone's giving the story about how they feel and what they've experienced with religion and I'm telling you what I'm experiencing in school.

I'm getting exasperated at the amount of people who think what you do & they haven't got age or inexperience to excuse them.

You stated you felt anyone who doesn't believe in the religion can "just" be excused - that point is oft trotted out in these kinds of threads to justify the status quo - unfortunately it is completely eclipsed by the actual issue, which is schools run by religious orders can refuse entry to pupils not of that religion.

Ickle Magoo · 29-12-2009 11:23PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Surely its only a matter of time before the state finds itself facing a constitutional challenge on this issue ?

It is & I'm relishing the prospect.

Groe · 29-12-2009 11:28PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm getting exasperated at the amount of people who think what you do & they haven't got age or inexperience to excuse them.

You stated you felt anyone who doesn't believe in the religion can "just" be excused - that point is oft trotted out in these kinds of threads to justify the status quo - unfortunately it is completely eclipsed by the actual issue, which is schools run by religious orders can refuse entry to pupils not of that religion.

I'm just trying to defend myself :P You use to many confusing words and phrases and it overwhelms me and I say stupid things

But yeah I do see where your coming from....sort of.....I've already been brainwashed by far too many people to know which side is up.....I'll eventually learn what's the really story is

dan719 · 29-12-2009 11:28PM

bronte wrote: »

Wow, you have a strange idea of what is normal education for young people then. Being pulled about by the roots of your hair is grand as long as you achieve good results? I've heard everything now. :rolleyes:

What's wrong with it? Honestly?We were all sixteen or seventeen, most of us fairly big and well able to look after ourselves. He never did it to people who might get upset by it, and it was more effective then telling someone to shut up or cop on. He was probably the most liked teacher in the school, and almost certainly the most successful in the country in his subject.

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but yeah that is an okay way to educate people. It's not abuse, and to claim as such is a blatent lie.

Seth Brundle · 29-12-2009 11:29PM

Groe wrote: »

I'm in third year and come from a religious enough family and I do believe in God. I go to a catholic school and attend mass most Sundays. Reading through this thread I only see the side of people who feel that religion in schools is bad and that parents are, in some cases, denying their child the right to different types of education.

The parents aren't denying the children their rights - the church led schools are doing this.

Groe wrote: »

In my school you do not have to participate in anything religion orientated. I feel that if any child in a religious school does not believe in the religion can just ask to be excused from any religious event.

I don't know what school you go to but when I was in school,
* it was a state funded school but was forced to sit through religion class (until my final year where I was given a choice)
* religion class was actually Catholicism class. I learnt nothing about other religions.

Groe wrote: »

I don't really know where I'm going with this but I just feel that people seem to make it out that religion is ruining the world and I feel that if someone strongly opposes religion then don't partake in it but din't take it away from people who do want to be religious etc. and stop trying to tell them religion is wrong....

Religions are the biggest cause of war so yes, it ruins the world. However, on a national level, by and large the Catholic church runs the state funded schools so if there are more applications that there are places, then a Catholic will get the place over someone who is not Catholic.

Groe wrote: »

I dunno don't want to start taking sides or anything but I feel that people are making a big deal of nothing

You are right to get involved though! Fair play to ya!
However, I wouldn't call it nothing.

Groe · 29-12-2009 11:34PM

Thanks kbannon I needed someone to explain a bit better what the story is.

But yes in my school, won't name it just incase, you don't have to do religion, you don't have to be Catholic to attend it, you don't have to attend any masses or the like associated with the school.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 29-12-2009 11:38PM

dan719 wrote: »

What's wrong with it? Honestly?We were all sixteen or seventeen, most of us fairly big and well able to look after ourselves. He never did it to people who might get upset by it, and it was more effective then telling someone to shut up or cop on. He was probably the most liked teacher in the school, and almost certainly the most successful in the country in his subject.

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but yeah that is an okay way to educate people. It's not abuse, and to claim as such is a blatent lie.

If he did that to me when I was sixteen or seventeen, I would have turned around and decked him, no questions asked.

And no, it's not an okay way to bully (sorry "teach") people.

bronte · 29-12-2009 11:39PM

dan719 wrote: »

What's wrong with it? Honestly?We were all sixteen or seventeen, most of us fairly big and well able to look after ourselves. He never did it to people who might get upset by it, and it was more effective then telling someone to shut up or cop on. He was probably the most liked teacher in the school, and almost certainly the most successful in the country in his subject.

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but yeah that is an okay way to educate people. It's not abuse, and to claim as such is a blatent lie.

Let me get this straight:

Pulling people by the hair when they don't agree with what you're saying is "okay".

Who is this individual to decide who might get upset by it or not?
My grandfather was one of the top math teachers in this country and never had to resort to such shit.
This is not, never has been and never will be acceptable.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 29-12-2009 11:40PM

bronte wrote: »

Let me get this straight:

Pulling people by the hair when they don't agree with what you're saying is "okay".

Who is this individual to decide who might get upset by it or not?
My grandfather was one of the top math teachers in this country and never had to resort to such shit.
This is not, never has been and never will be acceptable.

I wonder how he'd react if this happened in his place of work?

dan719 · 29-12-2009 11:42PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If he did that to me when I was sixteen or seventeen, I would have turned around and decked him, no questions asked.

And no, it's not an okay way to bully (sorry "teach") people.

You're a real hero. :rolleyes:

When did society get so sensitive that pulling someone's lock became such a massive deal. He was a teacher. In his capacity as a teacher everyone got good grades, sometimes he would use pulling locks as a technique to get someone's attention, or make them cop on.

Get off your moral high horses. AH feels like Biggins has been cloned a few hundred times tonight.

Ickle Magoo · 29-12-2009 11:48PM

dan719 wrote: »

When did society get so sensitive that pulling someone's lock became such a massive deal...

I believe it was 1982...and in 1996 society got sooooo sensitive that it became a criminal offence. Something about parents getting all uppity at teachers doing a little more inappropriate than tweaking hair.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 29-12-2009 11:51PM

dan719 wrote: »

You're a real hero. :rolleyes:

When did society get so sensitive that pulling someone's lock became such a massive deal. He was a teacher. In his capacity as a teacher everyone got good grades, sometimes he would use pulling locks as a technique to get someone's attention, or make them cop on.

Get off your moral high horses. AH feels like Biggins has been cloned a few hundred times tonight.

What the **** does standing up for yourself got to do with heroism??

And what moral ****ing high horses? This isn't a morality issue - and if you can't see that, your wonderful teacher has taught you nothing, which is my underlying point all along.

JupiterKid · 30-12-2009 12:05AM

Newsflash dan719...

This is 2010, not 1910. Physical violence in the classroom is totally unacceptable in a modern, civilised society.

Religious organisations has no business in running State funded schools or any State funded educational establishment. if they want to set up their own schools, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay a cent towards it. End of story.

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 12:31AM

kbannon wrote: »

Religions are the biggest cause of war so yes, it ruins the world.

Wrong, extremists' brain washing and screwed up interpretations of religion cause war. give me one religion that promotes war?

Seth Brundle · 30-12-2009 12:54AM

moretothegirl wrote: »

give me one religion that promotes war?

OK I should have said something like religious intolerance, etc.

moretothegirl wrote: »

Wrong, extremists' brain washing and screwed up interpretations of religion cause war.

Aren't all religions an interpretation? What defines a screwed up interpretation then?

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 01:05AM

kbannon wrote: »

OK I should have said something like religious intolerance, etc.
Aren't all religions an interpretation? What defines a screwed up interpretation then?

When a religion is based on peace and tolerance but when "followers" decide to die for their cause and kill others in the process then that is surely a screwed up interpretation

Seth Brundle · 30-12-2009 01:10AM

moretothegirl wrote: »

When a religion is based on peace and tolerance but when "followers" decide to die for their cause and kill others in the process then that is surely a screwed up interpretation

Thats your interpretation - the oxford dictionary has a different one!

religion
• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.

Anyhow, I think this is going off the principal topic of haveing the Catholic church rule our schools and the minister being too chicken to do anything about it.

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 01:15AM

I for one think it would be devestating if the catholic church had to give up the schools.

pljudge321 · 30-12-2009 01:19AM

moretothegirl wrote: »

I for one think it would be devestating if the catholic church had to give up the schools.

Why?

Honest question.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-12-2009 01:24AM

moretothegirl wrote: »

I for one think it would be devestating if the catholic church had to give up the schools.

Personally, I don't think they should. But they should be funding their schools themselves and not the taxpayer. That or any child of a Irish resident should be accepted, irresepctive of religion

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 01:31AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Personally, I don't think they should. But they should be funding their schools themselves and not the taxpayer. That or any child of a Irish resident should be accepted, irresepctive of religion

Im not sure if Ive understood your post right, are you saying you think the church should fund the schools not the government? I really don't understand the reasoning behind that...

And as far as I was aware any child would be accepted, irrispective of religion? Please correct me on this though if I'm wrong?

pljudge321 · 30-12-2009 01:37AM

moretothegirl wrote: »

Im not sure if Ive understood your post right, are you saying you think the church should fund the schools not the government? I really don't understand the reasoning behind that...

And as far as I was aware any child would be accepted, irrispective of religion? Please correct me on this though if I'm wrong?

No, the schools are allowed discriminate under the guise of having an ethos and give preferential preference to those four and five year olds who had a bit of water poured over them when they were babies.

I find it disgusting that any school funded by the tax payer is granted the right to discriminate against the tax payer and refuse them entry to the school that they themselves are funding.

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 01:37AM

pljudge321 wrote: »

Why?

Honest question.

I honestly feel like that their presence is a warm one in schools now. I understand that there is a lot of hatred in the country towards what has happened in the past, and i COMPLETELY understand that, please dont get me wrong.

I just feel that that is in the past and that the presence of nuns and priests in schools now are more pleasant. I think its a lovely experience for a child to be taught about jesus and to take part in their communion/confirmation.
I think that there a lot of adults who choose not to believe in the church, which is fine as they are adults, but if their children dont receive religion in schools then they will be unaware of religions until they are much older. I feel that children should be exposed to religion in the school because when we all become adults we then choose whether or not to continue with religion. It is a personal decision adults must make for themselves and I think children would suffer if it was taken from the schools as I think many would remain unexposed to any form of religion and then if they decide to turn to religion when they are an adult I think they would resent the fact that they had not been given the opportunities to make their communion/confirmation as children.

this is just my opinion, I am in no way saying that I am right in this debate. just how i feel

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-12-2009 01:38AM

moretothegirl wrote: »

Im not sure if Ive understood your post right, are you saying you think the church should fund the schools not the government? I really don't understand the reasoning behind that...

And as far as I was aware any child would be accepted, irrispective of religion? Please correct me on this though if I'm wrong?

If a Catholic-run school accepts everyone and allows individual children to opt out of religion classes, then I have no porblem.

However, the point has been made that some only accpet baptised children, which is one of the bones of contention. If this is so - and they are welcome to do this - but they should NOT be funded by the state.

I just feel that that is in the past and that the presence of nuns and priests in schools now are more pleasant. I think its a lovely experience for a child to be taught about jesus and to take part in their communion/confirmation.

Some yes, some no. I agree there's been a lot of tarring-with-the-same-brush going in. However, in a multi-faith society, this is not always the best course of action.

I think that there a lot of adults who choose not to believe in the church, which is fine as they are adults, but if their children dont receive religion in schools then they will be unaware of religions until they are much older. I feel that children should be exposed to religion in the school because when we all become adults we then choose whether or not to continue with religion.

Again fine - as long as it is "religion" and not "catholicism". I think it would be an excellent idea for kids to learn about ALL different faiths around the world on an equal basis.

It is a personal decision adults must make for themselves and I think children would suffer if it was taken from the schools as I think many would remain unexposed to any form of religion and then if they decide to turn to religion when they are an adult I think they would resent the fact that they had not been given the opportunities to make their communion/confirmation as children.

Again, we're not suggesting atheism here (at least I'm not). Communion and confirmatino may be nice, but very few children actually understand what these events mean when they happen. The oppertunity is fine, but conversely, the option to opt out and yet still attend should be present.

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 01:40AM

pljudge321 wrote: »

No, the schools are allowed discriminate under the guise of having an ethos and give preferential preference to those four and five year olds who had a bit of water poured over them when they were babies.

I find it disgusting that any institution funded by the tax payer is granted the right to discriminate against the tax payer and refuse them entry to the school they themselves are funding.

I have never really had anything to do with this situation so I am unaware of what is the norm, but can you clarify to me that what your saying is the schools refuse entry to children who are not baptised? because I have certainly never heard of this in my own local area... Sure all church-run schools have many children of other religions who just choose not to part take in the religion system being taught.... how were they allowed enter if thats the case?

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 01:42AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

If a Catholic-run school accepts everyone and allows individual children to opt out of religion classes, then I have no porblem.

However, the point has been made that some only accpet baptised children, which is one of the bones of contention. If this is so - and they are welcome to do this - but they should NOT be funded by the state.

This I completely agree with. Under NO circumstances should children be refused on grounds of not being baptised.

Mike 1972 · 30-12-2009 01:57AM

moretothegirl wrote: »

I think that there a lot of adults who choose not to believe in the church, which is fine as they are adults, but if their children dont receive religion in schools then they will be unaware of religions until they are much older.

And this would be a bad thing how ?

moretothegirl wrote: »

I feel that children should be exposed to religion in the school because when we all become adults we then choose whether or not to continue with religion.

Which one ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 30-12-2009 02:01AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

And this would be a bad thing how ?

Ignorance is always a bad thing. Why shouldn't schools teach about religions?

moretothegirl · 30-12-2009 02:07AM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

And this would be a bad thing how ?

Which one ?

Since we are living in a nation that has very strong christian links then obviously either roman catholic church or church of ireland. and before anyone jumps down my neck of living in the now and ireland being a different country now, i think it would be a very drastic decision to sever the ties between the church and state/education as it runs deep into our history for hundreds of years and who are you to decide it is time to cut that link now and undo all that work when there are still plenty of people who are happy to have this connection?

I think the way forward is the educate together schools, there should be a choice there. The answer is not simply to cut religion out as I know many adults want their children to be taught religion. Sometimes it isnt even about the religion itself but the basic principles that religion teaches us, ie. to be a good person, treat people well, try to live a good life etc.

Removing religious influence from schools not in my remit, says Minister

Comments