Why is Ruari Quinn so anti-Catholic?

ISAW wrote: »

Other thasn the thread title? The plural was used.

Now you're just being picky. Although...

what non Roman catholic religious denomination do you think wants and should get a Catholic School building from the Catholic School? What area has such laege numbers leaving the Catholic Church and asking to be in this new or other denomination?

...this technically, also qualifies as a loaded question. Why does any religious organisation have to run schools?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

At a very simple level, the Catholic Church have too many more schools than there are Catholics in Ireland and parents do not have a real choice. No-one is arguing for complete removal of the church from our schools, just balancing them down towords the numbers who want that sort of education.

This is exactly the point. Nobody is suggesting that all religious schools will be closed down forthwith. Indeed, the point of the exercise is to enage with schools and the communities they serve, and to make decisions on patronage based on those consultations. Where there is a clear demand for continuing religious patronage, that will continue. Where a demand for an alternative is evident, an alternative will be provided. I fail to see how anyone could have a problem with such a reasonable, consulatative process. But then, some people just seem to like to argue for the sake of it.

rockmongrel wrote: »

Do you actually understand what secularism is?

please don't encourage him :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

Atheistic China and USSR oversaw the planned deaths of over a hundred million people. State Atheism was central to their political agenda. No atheistic society contributed any great things to the history of civilization. But what do we get? Frothing about the tiny minority of abusers which are clergy and whipping up the fears of religions being involved in education when the alternative isn't indicated and the potential harm of religion exaggerated.

Jesus H Christ.. and I'm an athiest btw..

Schools should either teach every religion or no religion when in the hands of the state. If you want to send your child to a religious school, then send them to a private one. The state should not prefer one religion over another ever and secular schools would be a great thing.

Separation of Church and state is important! All of us are not catholics and we have a right to be able to educate our kids in a fair and equal setting. If you want your children to be religious do it at home.

I think the overbearing point that is being made here is that the Catholic Church - nor any church - should have a monopoly on the education of our children.

In my own opinion, school should be about education. Religious education may be a part of that, that's up to the parent of each individual child and if they want to conciously send their child to a denominational school then that's fine once the religious values are not rammed down the throats of the kids with detrement to education that is actually based on fact rather than belief.

The fact that the CC has been allowed to maintain such a huge patronage over schools here and effectively bar parents from having any choice in whether or not their kids go through the whole catholic rigmarole is wrong.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In rural areas that isn't a choice as schools actually exist in isolation.

Well not entirely. Rural schools should exist in isolation, but one often finds several very small schools in relative proximity to one another. There is a process of amalgamation underway at the moment, so many of these will (hopefully) be integrated into larger schools in the near future. At that point, a decision can be arrived at, based on the wants and needs of the local community. A perfectly equitable solution may not always be arrived at, but the situation at the moment is entirely untenable.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

A fully fledged two tier education system, where the private "old schools" run by the Church educate the leaders of tomorrow while the ordinary plebs get a low quality education in the school run by the VEC....

Splitting a system, which isn't broken, will create more problems than it solves. It will lead to a new brand of eliteism. Couple this with the fact that university is going to become less affordable and ironically a Labour minister may be responsible for keeping the working classes out of reaching their full potential?


If a secular education is so desireable then why is there such a long waiting list for children to get into faith based schools in the UK?

VEC schools can be run very well. The way you speak you would swear that as soon as religion and a weekly visit from the priest stopped in schools that entire education system would collapse.

Rather than having kids do a religion class once or twice a week, that time could be spent learning a meaningful subject.
Rather than having kids learn songs and chants for communion and confirmation they can learn a meaningful subject.

Want to make confirmation? Bring your child down to the church yourself, stop wasting other kids time.

As for this whole anti-working class sentiment that you're talking about.
Private schools already exist. Some are religious. Some are non-religious.
If you can afford it, go for it.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So these amalgamated rural schools will then face the same choice where a possible sizable minority may want change but the majority wants to keep the status quo. Its these kind of things that will split communities particularly rural ones, where the school is one of the key institutions of a locality.

In very few cases will there be a desire for all out change where greater than 85% of parents desire it, apart from our new ghettos.

The truth is change will be a highly divisive local issue.

Once again I fail to see why religion needs to be taught in these schools. Religion, just like political or sports beliefs is a private thing, and children should be taught from their parents about which religion/political party and football team to follow rather than have the state actively pushing Catholic down their throats.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So these amalgamated rural schools will then face the same choice where a possible sizable minority may want change but the majority wants to keep the status quo. Its these kind of things that will split communities particularly rural ones, where the school is one of the key institutions of a locality.

Firstly, i don't think this is as divisive issue as you are making out. I know many parents who would like a secular education for their kids, but not to the extent that they'd fall out with people over it.

Also, you speak of rural communities as if they were planetary systems, seperated by massive distances rather than a few miles. "Rural" schools very often cater to a rural population from an urban centre, where there are several other schools. I know this to be the case in several towns in my county. There would not be a problem in designating one such school as non-denominational.

Furthermore, at the moment there is NO choice in the system. You seem to be arguing that, in the absence of a perfect system where everyone is offered a choice, no attempt be made to offer SOME choice. It's all or nothing etc. I don't think this is a very logical position to take.

In very few cases will there be a desire for all out change where greater than 85% of parents desire it, apart from our new ghettos.

You can't possibly know this. how about we let the consultative body do its work for a bit before we throw out figures that can't be substantiated?

The truth is change will be a highly divisive local issue.

No, I think that is a strawman really. In a tiny minority of rural communities it might cause problems, but that's no reason to deny choice to the large proportion of people who want, and demand it.