Why is Ruari Quinn so anti-Catholic?

edanto · 05-04-2011 11:28AM

Dave! wrote: »

It's one of Labour's policies to get ET patronage of secondary schools

Absolutely, and that's why I canvassed for Quinn when I was living in that constituency; I think he has the potential to be the best Minister for Education that we have ever had.

It's the one area of government where radical change can take place, because it is essential and it won't cost a whole lot of money.

By the way, has anyone see the original poster or has he run away from the thread after getting the responses he expected?

Has anyone had their mind changed by this thread, or learned anything?

ISAW · 05-04-2011 11:35AM

bastados wrote: »

It should be pointed out that there is a difference between the religious institutions of Ireland that have abused and dehumanised people for far too long and being a roman catholic...I believe Minister Quinn is anti-institution not anti-religious.

If that is the case he should have no problem in supporting religious believers who are anti authoritarian. I haven't heard him say he supports Catholics (or other denominations) who want Catholic schools and that the state should provide the finance.

Most Irish have a varying degree of mistrust for these "absolutist" institutions that were build over the decades in this country with tax payer money....

Ahh! But one of these monoliths is the department of Education! What is he doing about his own shop? I might suggest he will not challenge the union dominated authoritanism of Molsworth street.

it revolted me that FF helped out the churches abusive legalities of recent years with more taxpayer money.

Look into the detalis. An FF Minister negoitiated with two nuns on the issue of abuse of orders. A fun was set aside funded by State and church to pay compensation. Would you rather a ten or fifteen year tribunal instead? And the state does have some "burden sharing" here. abuse was not organised and orchestrated and carried out by clergy. Most abuse was non clergy and facilitated by State public servants.

Quinn is getting things done as far as I'm concerned...FF were beyond caring.

this has nothing to do with FF! The Church supports the idea of transfer of schools. I want to know if Quinn believes no tax funding should be given to ethos schools are "secularists" are suggesting here.

edanto · 05-04-2011 11:41AM

ISAW wrote: »

I haven't heard him say he supports Catholics (or other denominations) who want Catholic schools and that the state should provide the finance.

So, somehow in all of this debate, you missed that fact that approx 50% of primary schools in the country will be religious, after all of these patronage changes.

It's safe to assume that most of them will be Catholic, right?

Can you not deduce from the information above that Quinn supports Catholics who want Catholic primary schools and he agrees that the state should provide the finance? If you pretend not to be aware of that, I think that you are being deliberately difficult, and frankly it's a little annoying.

Dirk Gently · 05-04-2011 11:46AM

ISAW wrote: »

If that is what you mean by Secular then say it!

I have no problem in saying school is no place for religion. That doesn't mean all schools will be atheist boot camps training the next generation of rapists and murderers. It just means children are educated free from any religious dogma and children are also free to study and worship in their respective religions outside of school hours.

What's stopping religious parents "educating" their own children about religion at home, or better yet, in their place of worship. Let your kids get their religious instruction from churches / mosques / synagogues etc. Surely this would boost the church memberships?

You really are straw clutching by assuming to speak on behalf of the nation when you claim that because 95% of people are religious that means 95% of people want religious dogma forced upon their children in school. Thats simply a distortion of the figure to suit your own agenda. Show me where given the choice of religion free education and religious influenced education 95% of people chose your assumed option. Let kids go to school free of religious influence and then we will have a true reflection of the numbers of religious people in the country as those who are prepare their children for sacraments in their local churches.

Feel free to preach about the end of days in this godless murdering society I suggest but a school free from religion is not an "atheist school" , it's simply a school where religion is not taught (or atheism ) and the individuals pursue their own religious beliefs in their own time.

The best way to protect children from having other peoples believe, or lack of believe forced on them is not to do it. Sounds pretty obvious tbh.

also, WTF is atheistic education anyway? Is it some kind of atheism class or something?

You of course may believe this few percent should be telling the rest of the people how to think.

you're a tyranny of the majority type guy are you?

Contra Proferentem · 05-04-2011 11:47AM

Ruari Quinn is anti-everything. I'm surprise the Labour yups on here like him.

ISAW · 05-04-2011 11:57AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not an atheist though.

What is your problem then?

The department of education is consistently failing people in this country by not providing a freely inclusive accessible education system. The reason for this is because over 95% of schools are run by the RCC.

They are NOT! Over 97 per cent of PRIMARY Schools are. In secondary it is mucvh different. the CoI Methodists, Presbyterians etc. come more into the picture. As do community and vocational schools run by local councils.

You can't say the problem is because of RCC influenced management boards!

And don't kid yourself, the church provides education for purely selfish reasons, not as an act of generosity.

You know this? How?

Dades · 05-04-2011 12:04PM

ISAW wrote:

Dades wrote: »

Approximately one-third of the population are under 18, and have somebody else filling in their census data. Even you have to admit that saying 95% of the one-third in question are "catholic" is a stretch.

so you dont believe what the people say. fair enough. I can only go by what the vast majority say and not by you opinion of how they really think.

Well my point was circa one-third of the population don't have a say - their parents do.
I don't understand how you managed to miss that.

ISAW wrote:

Dades wrote:

About 300,000 of them are still in nappies, for a start, and I'd suggest Boards.ie is a fair representation of the older ones in that demographic.

How so? How is it fair? In fact the fairest stastics are official ones. That say about one or two percent ore atheist.

Again, if the official statistics are flawed in that one-third of them don't actually get to respond to questions about themselves, then it's safe to say no - they are not the fairest.

On the other hand Boards is a representation of young peoples' actual views, rather than those of their parents as alluded to above, and paints a completely different picture.

ISAW wrote:

You of course may believe this few percent should be telling the rest of the people how to think.

It's sad that someone with so much time and enthusiasm would put their name to such a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

ISAW · 05-04-2011 12:14PM

clown bag wrote: »

I have no problem in saying school is no place for religion.

And you believe that no state money should be given to any school with a religious ethos?
And you believe that is the Ministers belief?
You believe it should be his belief if it isn't?

What's stopping religious parents "educating" their own children about religion at home, or better yet, in their place of worship.

Nothing. And nothing is stopping them asking the school also to do it either.

Let your kids get their religious instruction from churches / mosques / synagogues etc. Surely this would boost the church memberships?

Most religious instruction in how to be a christian for example comes from family e.g. parents. Detailed theology is assisted by trained teachers just as maths and science is.

You really are straw clutching by assuming to speak on behalf of the nation when you claim that because 95% of people are religious that means 95% of people want religious dogma forced upon their children in school.

90 per cent are religious. Almost all of these are mainstrean christian i.e. dogmatic churches. the school does not "force religious dogma". It spends an hour or two a week on details. the rest of the time the ethos is encouraged. Quite clearly most people want this. If they didn't it would be an issue. You seem to think people are sheep in 1950s Ireland who must obey what a Bishop says in respect to schools or else! It isn't like that.

Thats simply a distortion of the figure to suit your own agenda.

That is a lie! I already pointed out my children went to either secular schools or non Catholic ones!

Show me where given the choice of religion free education and religious influenced education 95% of people chose your assumed option. Let kids go to school free of religious influence and then we will have a true reflection of the numbers of religious people in the country as those who are prepare their children for sacraments in their local churches.

Well as later stated it is closer to 90 % christian. But the 2% atheist is a true reflection of the real position.

The "preparation for sacraments" thing is again a Primary issue. After Primary education isn't 97 per cent Roman Catholic schools! Kids are free to go to schools free of religious ethos. guess what? the people that vote for Quinn all queue up to go to Jesuit and Holy Ghost Schools! He went to one himself. His kids probably go there.

Feel free to preach about the end of days

That isn't mainstrean Christianity it is fundamentalist fringe and about as numerous ars atheists in ireland.

in this godless murdering society I suggest

It isnt a suggestion. It is a historic fact! Godless societies murdered people by the hundred millions!

but a school free from religion is not an "atheist school" , it's simply a school where religion is not taught (or atheism ) and the individuals pursue their own religious beliefs in their own time.

Is atheism not just the absence of religion? Your "atheist school" above is one wher atheism is promoted . thisis what I would call "antitheism" or "fundamentalist atheism" or "evangelizing/proselytising atheim"

The best way to protect children from having other peoples believe, or lack of believe forced on them is not to do it. Sounds pretty obvious tbh.

So if we do not want a schools where there is no belief we should not support such a school and should support ethos schools instead. And that is exactly what people do.

ISAW · 05-04-2011 12:26PM

Dades wrote: »

Well my point was circa one-third of the population don't have a say - their parents do.
I don't understand how you managed to miss that.

Parents are responsible for their children. If you want a kibbutz or hippi society then I suggest you try somewhere wher they have one. Ireland isn't one of those places. children also cant have bank accounts or vote but the people who do vote decide on what system will govern and run the country. What is your problem with having courts bank laws and police where the children dont decide what is being done to their rights or money? If you don't have a problem with that then why do you have a problem only with schools which parents decide on?

Again, if the official statistics are flawed in that one-third of them don't actually get to respond to questions about themselves, then it's safe to say no - they are not the fairest.

you just can't say a parents choice for their child is unfair because the children haven't the choice for themselves. In fact if you apply this principle to the "rights of the unborn" you would be in a problem with respect to the pro abortion lobby.

On the other hand Boards is a representation of young peoples' actual views, rather than those of their parents as alluded to above, and paints a completely different picture.

It is a representation of some peoples actual views. But your intolerance of others is showing. apparently you think a minority should be able to inflict their beliefs on others. this is something even the vast majority Church don't do!

It's sad that someone with so much time and enthusiasm would put their name to such a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.

You just validateds the "... few percent should be telling the rest of the people how to think." above when you stated:

Boards is a representation of young peoples' actual views, ...and paints a completely different picture.

why should a minority opinion of atheists or young people be binding on the whole of the education system?

old hippy · 05-04-2011 12:31PM

TBH, religion is such an isidious evil and has no place in the education system. Let the young ones make their own minds up when they are older, should they wish to buy into the multitude of fairy tales out there.

Conversely, I have no problem if a school had a syllabus in which the kids could study all the religions and be warned of their failings and occasional moments of beauty.

Dirk Gently · 05-04-2011 12:36PM

How is atheism "promoted". surely that would require some kind of class teaching or instruction against religion?

Nodin · 05-04-2011 12:41PM

ISAW wrote: »

AS does Ireland and as Is Ireland.

In the US secularism means "no tax support for any school with any mention of God"
I have already pointed out why that came about.
In Ireland and Australia wher they have religion in schools they are still secular countries but they support the right of people to have Church involvment or not to have it if that is what the people want. The people don't want atheist schools.

You've no evidence of what the people want one way or another.

Secondly, no one has proposed "atheist schools".

ISAW wrote: »

Yes it does!

It shows

1. About (..........)we are copying their education model?

There is no data in the census that says that "Most people want ethos education". You are presuming that because a majority of people profess a religous affiliation, they reject secular education. Please don't present your speculation as fact.

ISAW wrote: »

the stats have been provided.

You claimed that this move by Quinn "was part of a campaign to remove religion from society". This is, as I pointed out, wild speculation on your part. "stats" have nothing to do with it, nor were any provided.

ISAW wrote: »

The Blaine Amendments owe their (.........)on the ballot.

n Zelman v. Simmons-Harris(2002),(.......) the not even feature!

I have no idea how these references to America are supposed to refer to the OP or the subject of the secularisation of Irish schools.

ISAW wrote: »

Do you know what "social hostility" and "state control" mean? do you know why the US became the way it is and why the founding fathers tried to back no religion rather that create division? do you really think we should be like the US in every respect or only in the case of not paying any tax money to any Schools which support a belief in God? ( which some states don't follow in any case)

Again, I've no idea to what this is supposed to relate to. I took issue with the way you seem to think that "secular" and "atheist" are the same thing. They are not.

ISAW wrote: »

If you have 100 atheists in Dun Laoghaire you should have no problem setting up your own atheist school.

Nobody in this thread - at least that I've noticed - has actually suggested setting up an atheist school. The gentleman to whom you're replying hasn't.

ISAW wrote: »

Oh so you represent the opinion of most Catholics now do you? .

That would seem to be your job.

edanto · 05-04-2011 12:42PM

ISAW wrote: »

why should a minority opinion of atheists or young people be binding on the whole of the education system?

As previously pointed out to you; you are deliberately conflating secularism and atheism for reasons best known to yourself. My best guess as to your reasons would be that you are trying to make secular schools sound bad. In the hope that people fall for your suggestion that the only predictable result from a secular/atheist society is the creation of at least one mad-man hell-bent on genocide. (note how I lazily joined secularism and atheism in the same clause, almost by accident, hoping that you would associate the two as being the same thing :rolleyes:)

You are being purposefully difficult in this discussion, repeating claims shown already to be false, and ignoring criticisms of your points.

You seem to be adopting the 'if I should loudly and long enough, they will go away' approach. I have some bad news for you - we will.

At a certain point, I'll just not care to engage in discussion with you. Others may feel the same. That feels worse than being argued with.

My suggestion would be that you ask someone else you trust to privately read the thread and discuss with you areas in which you might be guilty of the behaviours in the paragraph above, instead of regurgitating straw men.

paul75 · 05-04-2011 12:43PM

You have to say the govt are taking on the tough decisions head on, and early on into their tenure.
This has always been a major issue as so many people don't want their kids taught religion.
By the time my son is school going age I hope this will be sorted as there is no way I could get him in to the local educate together school as the waiting list is huge. I think teaching kids religion is a form of child abuse - I don't want him brainwashed into believing in such nonsense.
As for Ruari Quinn, he has to be commended. He's well off enough not to be in politics to line his own pockets and old enough to realise that this is probably his last chance to leave a positive legacy. However it's going to be tough - land owned by church, buildings built by the state - what a mess!

Fratton Fred · 05-04-2011 12:46PM

ISAW wrote: »

What is your problem then?

They are NOT! Over 97 per cent of PRIMARY Schools are. In secondary it is mucvh different. the CoI Methodists, Presbyterians etc. come more into the picture. As do community and vocational schools run by local councils.

You can't say the problem is because of RCC influenced management boards!

You know this? How?

I'm not a catholic and I want my child to mix with children from all denominations and faiths. I want her to be prepared for the world, not a white catholic version of it.

Churches educate because it is the easiest form of indoctrination. I don't blame them for this at all, I blame successive governments who have opted for the easy option of getting someone else to provide a fundamental service whilst concentrating on feathering their own nests.

Education is a right, it should be open to all and not dependant on a child's parents religious orientation.

raymon · 05-04-2011 12:51PM

Even today another headline about a priest abusing kids.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0405/breaking27.html

Why would anyone want these people to run our schools

Doctor DooM · 05-04-2011 12:52PM

I wonder does ISAW grasp at all that secularism also means all religions are protected equally.

This is an important distinction for those conflating secularism with atheism (bearing in mind the term atheism literally means the lack of belief in a god, and nothing more, and doesn't really have any deeper meaning than that- there are atheists who believe in ghosts, left wing, right wing, etc etc. )

endabob1 · 05-04-2011 01:18PM

ISAW wrote: »

If you want a kibbutz or hippi society then I suggest you try somewhere wher they have one. Ireland isn't one of those places. children also cant have bank accounts or vote but the people who do vote decide on what system will govern and run the country.

and the people voted for Labour as part of a government who will make the requisite changes to the Education system.

The People get what the people want.....

caseyann · 05-04-2011 01:20PM

raymon wrote: »

Even today another headline about a priest abusing kids.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0405/breaking27.html

Why would anyone want these people to run our schools

Please,how feeble is that.
If thats the case then wow look at Islam and all the Imans who are condoning murder in name of their religion:eek:

Loads and loads of great priests,find another angle.:rolleyes:

sensibleken · 05-04-2011 01:24PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I wonder does ISAW grasp at all that secularism also means all religions are protected equally.

This is an important distinction for those conflating secularism with atheism (bearing in mind the term atheism literally means the lack of belief in a god, and nothing more, and doesn't really have any deeper meaning than that- there are atheists who believe in ghosts, left wing, right wing, etc etc. )

Clearly he doesn't I have seen it mentioned that secularism is not athiesm every few posts.

It seems to be a peculiarity of religious zealots that if their religion is not given the primary place above all other considerations then its 'help help were being repressed, stalin, pol pot, hitler, purple monkey dishwasher!'

deise go deo · 05-04-2011 01:26PM

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I wonder does ISAW grasp at all that secularism also means all religions are protected equally.

This is an important distinction for those conflating secularism with atheism (bearing in mind the term atheism literally means the lack of belief in a god, and nothing more, and doesn't really have any deeper meaning than that- there are atheists who believe in ghosts, left wing, right wing, etc etc. )

Athiesm dose have a deeper meaning than that. (Or at least can have) There is a hard core within athesiam who do not simply lack a beliefe in any kind of god, but are militently insistent that religion of any kind is a destructive thing in the world.

I would have no problem with a Secular school system that tolerates all religious beliefs and none.
But when I see some (And I stress Some) talking about a secular school system, what I get the feeling they are really talking about is a system that would promote atheisim by making religion seem to be backward and wrong to the children in the class.

sensibleken · 05-04-2011 01:27PM

caseyann wrote: »

Please,how feeble is that.
If thats the case then wow look at Islam and all the Imans who are condoning murder in name of their religion:eek:

Loads and loads of great priests,find another angle.:rolleyes:

So

The catholic church is an organisation which systematically and as almost a matter of principle facilitated and covered up the abuse right the way from the abuser to the pope. It is not significant that there are decent priests as it is the organisation that is rotten. Just because they believe in a jewish zombie whos da lives on a cloud should not give them any consession

pocketvenus · 05-04-2011 01:34PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You still don't say why the schools are better. The teachers might be better, but who trains the teachers? The church or the state? Why are the reuslts better? Can you prove this is down to the religious ethos?

The money shouldn't be a problem as the state is currently funding the schools at the moment anyway.

I agree with you about teaching faiths in a neutral manner, rather than focusing in on one faith.

I don't think Deputy Quinn's specific goal here is to improve standards, just to offer more choice to parents. There is an increasing demand for more secular schools over here and his moves are simply to reflect that. He wouldn't be doing his job if he ignored it. Making sure that standards are not effected should, of course, be addressed, but it's a seperate issue.

I would also disagree that it is the state's repsonsibility to provide religious schools. That is the responsibility of the relevant church. Jewish schools are set up by the Jewish faith and Islamic schools by the Islamic faith. Catholic schools should be no different and get no special treatment.

Finally, your boyfriend's experiences correcting JC papers is a bit strange, considering they more than likely came from catholic schools, being Ireland, and contradicts your first argument.

Well according to Deputy Quinn's quote his aim is to improve standards as he said religion is a wate of time and the time devoted to it should be put towards improving maths, english etc. My point is removing religion from schools won't improve these standards. The point I was making in relation to the JC papers is that it is not religion or the teaching of it in schools which is causing or preventing children being literate which is an point being thrown about. Anyway the schools are run by lay people now and the church has very little say in it so the schools couldn't technically be called Catholic anymore.

In regards to Catholic schools I am not 100% sure of the total facts but from what I can gather some of the teachers go to colleges which would be run and funded by Church. I never said that religion was the full reason why the schools are better but there seems to be a link between the schools and high education. Studies are been done into why this is. All I know is out of my 5 cousin living in the US & UK 4 went to Cathlic schools and all achieved top marks, went to Ivy league colleges and now have excellent careers.

No -one very said Catholics should get special treatment but neither should other religions or non-believers.

If Catholic Church were to establish their own schools and followed the trend in the US & UK, well I can imgaine the typcial Irish repsonse. Complaining that it is not fair, parents suddenly saying they are Catholic to get their kids in etc. Well according to Deputy Quinn's quote his aim is to improve standards as he said religion is a wate of time and the time devoted to it should be put towards improving maths, english etc. My point is removing religion from schools won't improve these standards. The point I was making in relation to the JC papers is that it is not religion or the teaching of it in schools which is causing or preventing children being literate which is an point being thrown about.

In regards to Catholic schools I am not 100% sure of the total facts but from what I can gather some of the teachers go to colleges which would be run and funded by Church. I never said that religion was the full reason why the schools are better but there seems to be a link between the schools and high education. Studies are been done into why this is. All I know is out of my 5 cousin living in the US & UK 4 went to Cathlic schools and all achieved top marks, went to Ivy league colleges and now have excellent careers.

No -one very said Catholics should get special treatment but neither should other religions or non-believers.

If Catholic Church were to establish their own schools and followed the trend in the US & UK, well I can imgaine the typcial Irish repsonse. Complaining that it is not fair, parents suddenly saying they are Catholic to get their kids in etc.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-04-2011 01:34PM

sensibleken wrote: »

So

The catholic church is an organisation which systematically and as almost a matter of principle facilitated and covered up the abuse right the way from the abuser to the pope. It is not significant that there are decent priests as it is the organisation that is rotten. Just because they believe in a jewish zombie whos da lives on a cloud should not give them any consession

You can make any religion sound ridiculous if you go down that road.

I agree that doling out the sex abuse excuses is a bit lame, especially when the abuses the story linked to were thirty years ago. Take the church on its merits or lack thereof today. If you can find evidence that the church is still abusing right now, then you'll have a point.

I still believe secularism is the way to go though. But with respect towards religions. And definitely not athiesm in schools, but no one's plugging this idea anyway.

caseyann · 05-04-2011 01:35PM

sensibleken wrote: »

So

The catholic church is an organisation which systematically and as almost a matter of principle facilitated and covered up the abuse right the way from the abuser to the pope. It is not significant that there are decent priests as it is the organisation that is rotten. Just because they believe in a jewish zombie whos da lives on a cloud should not give them any consession

Loads of people believe in the Jewish zombie

And its a hell of alot more than dont.So you better take that into your consideration.
These people want their kids to make their communion and confirmation in school.There was only three in the class i worked with last year who didnt and there is only two tis year who arent.
People are the problem not the religion if thats the case then no to mosques in Ireland.
.

Doctor DooM · 05-04-2011 01:39PM

deise go deo wrote: »

Athiesm dose have a deeper meaning than that. (Or at least can have) There is a hard core within athesiam who do not simply lack a beliefe in any kind of god, but are militently insistent that religion of any kind is a destructive thing in the world.

But that is not what atheism means. These people don't just call themselves atheists if they know what is what. Atheists are often secularists or humanists but they should be aware of the differences between them if they care.

There's alot of weird misunderstanding about the term, much like there is agnostic (For example, you can be an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic atheist (albeit with some difficulty

)

It just suits for atheists to be painted as horrid religion destroying baby eaters by alot of the religious right sometimes- as ISAW is doing.

caseyann · 05-04-2011 01:40PM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You can make any religion sound ridiculous if you go down that road.

I agree that doling out the sex abuse excuses is a bit lame, especially when the abuses the story linked to were thirty years ago. Take the church on its merits or lack thereof today. If you can find evidence that the church is still abusing right now, then you'll have a point.

I still believe secularism is the way to go though. But with respect towards religions. And definitely not athiesm in schools, but no one's plugging this idea anyway.

If a school wants to be catholic it has every right to be so,and if it wants to be secularized it can be every right to do so.If someone of a different religion send their child to a catholic school,thats their tuff.Forcing the majority to change for a minority is disgraceful.
No one has the right to force any school to change.

Nodin · 05-04-2011 01:42PM

caseyann wrote: »

Loads of people believe in the Jewish zombie And its a hell of alot more than dont.So you better take that into your consideration.
These people want their kids to make their communion and confirmation in school.There was only three in the class i worked with last year who didnt and there is only two tis year who arent.
People are the problem not the religion if thats the case then no to mosques in Ireland.
.

Be as good as to explain the relevance of the bolded part above, because that (and its meaning) escape me at the moment.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-04-2011 01:42PM

pocketvenus wrote: »

Well according to Deputy Quinn's quote his aim is to improve standards as he said religion is a wate of time and the time devoted to it should be put towards improving maths, english etc. My point is removing religion from schools won't improve these standards. The point I was making in relation to the JC papers is that it is not religion or the teaching of it in schools which is causing or preventing children being literate which is an point being thrown about. Anyway the schools are run by lay people now and the church has very little say in it so the schools couldn't technically be called Catholic anymore.

In regards to Catholic schools I am not 100% sure of the total facts but from what I can gather some of the teachers go to colleges which would be run and funded by Church. I never said that religion was the full reason why the schools are better but there seems to be a link between the schools and high education. Studies are been done into why this is. All I know is out of my 5 cousin living in the US & UK 4 went to Cathlic schools and all achieved top marks, went to Ivy league colleges and now have excellent careers.

No -one very said Catholics should get special treatment but neither should other religions or non-believers.

If Catholic Church were to establish their own schools and followed the trend in the US & UK, well I can imgaine the typcial Irish repsonse. Complaining that it is not fair, parents suddenly saying they are Catholic to get their kids in etc. Well according to Deputy Quinn's quote his aim is to improve standards as he said religion is a wate of time and the time devoted to it should be put towards improving maths, english etc. My point is removing religion from schools won't improve these standards. The point I was making in relation to the JC papers is that it is not religion or the teaching of it in schools which is causing or preventing children being literate which is an point being thrown about.

In regards to Catholic schools I am not 100% sure of the total facts but from what I can gather some of the teachers go to colleges which would be run and funded by Church. I never said that religion was the full reason why the schools are better but there seems to be a link between the schools and high education. Studies are been done into why this is. All I know is out of my 5 cousin living in the US & UK 4 went to Cathlic schools and all achieved top marks, went to Ivy league colleges and now have excellent careers.

No -one very said Catholics should get special treatment but neither should other religions or non-believers.

If Catholic Church were to establish their own schools and followed the trend in the US & UK, well I can imgaine the typcial Irish repsonse. Complaining that it is not fair, parents suddenly saying they are Catholic to get their kids in etc.

Schools will always be deemed catholic as long as they can pick and choose the pupils according to religious background.

Your implication most certainly was that Catholic schools were better. I don't accept this is being relevant until someone shows me exactly how the catholic church runs a school in a better way than a secular school. Not looking for statistics here, just examples.

The Catholic Church are more than welcome to set up their own schools, but they hould not be state funded if they do so. In any case, I was led to believe be earlier posters that the church is trying to scale down their opperations.

Finally, one more point (generally; not replying to post any more!): if you were a qualified teacher and an open athiest (or agnostic), should a state-run school be allowed to discriminate against you on the gorunds of religion?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-04-2011 01:44PM

caseyann wrote: »

If a school wants to be catholic it has every right to be so,and if it wants to be secularized it can be every right to do so.If someone of a different religion send their child to a catholic school,thats their tuff.Forcing the majority to change for a minority is disgraceful.
No one has the right to force any school to change.

At the risk of repeating myself (because no one seems to want to debate this) but they do if said school is taking taxpayers money and then demanding that taxpayers kids subscribe to a religion or not be admitted. Especially if it's a rural area and there are no other schools nearby.

If the school is entirely self-sufficient, then yes, your point is correct.

Why is Ruari Quinn so anti-Catholic?

Comments