NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

Mistress 69 · 06-07-2011 1:19pm

crucamim wrote: »

Why should I think again?

If you answered my question as to biggotry from primary school kids, you would have to agree that you have never heard of a single incident. So it would follow that nobody is filling their kids heads with anti Catholic Venom. I am Catholic myself and while I have had dust ups on the A&A forum, I have not come accross anti Catholic venom.

philologos · 06-07-2011 1:19pm

robindch wrote: »

That's a bit like saying that 99% of people injured in road accidents manage to recover. It doesn't address the basic fact that pretending that religious stories are true is a fundamentally dishonest act.

Who says anyone is pretending? It seems that they actually believe that their faith is true just as much as you don't believe that it is.

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:24pm

koth wrote: »

Right I'm fed up of this "the church bought and pays for schools" muck. I'm going to attempt to break down money from state vs. church money donated.

Two examples for this, one a school which was built around 1986, which is prior to government changing the rules for funding in 1999.

The second shall be a school opened in 2000.

Both the site and building costs will be estimated by myself as I can't find any information online. The running costs for each year shall be the same every year, just to keep it simple for myself.

If crucamim wishes to correct any figures, feel free to post up information to correct my assumptions about the maths.

The school built in 2000 figures are based on info I found on citizensinformation.ie as to how things are funded for new schools.

So, to the first school opened in 1986:

Lets assume the site was €500,000 and all funded by the church.
The building for simplicity was also funded by both state and church, split down the middle. So, say €100,000 for each.

Next we have teachers wages which I'll put at €30,000. This is entirely funded by the state. And we have 8 teachers, so €240,000 in total.

The patron of the school then receives €200 per student. So I'll use class sizes of 25 per class, with 8 classes, this gives a total of €40,000.

So to recap we have a once of cost of €700,000 to get the school up and running, and then an annual cost of €280,000.

The school has been running for 25 years, so lets see how state vs. church contributions compare:

Church contributes a once off cost of €600,000.

The state contributes a once off cost of €100,000.

The state then pays €280,000 for 25 years, which gives us, €7,000,000.

So, to sum up for school A, church paid €600,000 and the state paid €7.1 million.

This somehow makes it a Catholic school?

Now to the school built in 2000 which has more demands on the state to fund building the school.

Lets assume the site was €500,000 and all funded by the church.

The building is funded by both state and church. It cost €200,000 to build and the church is limited to 5% contribution towards the cost, so the church pays €10,000 and the state pays the remaining €190,000.

Next we have teachers wages which I'll put at €30,000. This is entirely funded by the state. And we have 8 teachers, so €240,000 in total.

The patron of the school then receives €200 per student. So I'll use class sizes of 25 per class, with 8 classes, this gives a total of €40,000.

So to recap we have a once of cost of €700,000 to get the school up and running, and then an annual cost of €280,000.

Church contributes a once off cost of €510,000.

The state contributes a once off cost of €190,000.

The state then pays €280,000 for 11 years, which gives us, €3,080,000.

So, to sum up for school B, church paid €510,000 and the state paid €3.18 million.

So how do we have the schools being referred to as catholic schools when in both examples the state bears the burden of the majority of the costs.

What point are you making? The churches have contributed some of the costs of the schools which they own. The bulk was provided by taxpayers - many of whom are members of those churches. The schools, which are owned by the churches, provide a social service - educating the children of that religion - and so receive payments from the State.

Now what is your problem? Even if denominational schools were receiving 100% taxpayer funding, (as in Holland, Scotland and Northern Ireland) children of those religions have a right to be educated in safety from sectarian or secularist harassment. Even if all schools were State schools, children have a right to be educated safe from sectarian or secularist harassment. e.g. Catholic children have a right to go to school without having to listen to their church being described as a "despicable organisation" or (as on another current thread) a "vile organisation". You and many other posters seem to be having great difficulty with that concept. I cannot imagine why.

yawha · 06-07-2011 1:27pm

crucamim wrote: »

Catholic children have a right to go to school without having to listen to their church being described as a "despicable organisation" or (as on another current thread) a "vile organisation".

How would this happen in a secular school???

Do you even understand what "secular" means??

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:28pm

dvpower wrote: »

But your discrimination theory would mean the the Dept. of Education was discriminating at secondary level, but not at primary - that doesn't sound right.

That is a very valid point. Why would the Dept of Education discriminate against Catholics at secondary level but not at primary level? But I am still left with the puzzle "Why does the RC Church own only 49% of the secondary schools while owing 92% of the primary schools? I am very, very suspicious.

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:33pm

yawha wrote: »

How would this happen in a secular school?????

For the same reason that it happens on this secular forum. Some people teaching in a secular school could be anti-Catholic. Some pupils attending a secular school could be anti-Catholic.

Do you really believe that the children of the poster, who, on this thread, has described the Catholic church as "a despicable organisation", would not use the same language to Catholic classmates or to their Catholic teacher? What is in the cat is in the kitten.

Delirium · 06-07-2011 1:38pm

crucamim wrote: »

What point are you making? The churches have contributed some of the costs of the schools which they own. The bulk was provided by taxpayers - many of whom are members of those churches. The schools, which are owned by the churches, provide a social service - educating the children of that religion - and so receive payments from the State.

That the argument the churches own the schools is being used as an excuse to allow sectarian policies by yourself, when in fact the government pays the vast majority of the cost of the schools.

Then when you flounder with that argument, you trot out the "well the majority of tax payers are Catholic" nonsense. Now personally speaking, I make no demands upon the government as to who does or doesn't get educated with my taxes, unlike you who wants some sort of sectarian tax collection policy.

There is no good reason for sectarianism in the public school system.

Now what is your problem? Even if denominational schools were receiving 100% taxpayer funding, (as in Holland, Scotland and Northern Ireland) children of those religions have a right to be educated in safety from sectarian or secularist harassment. Even if all schools were State schools, children have a right to be educated safe from sectarian or secularist harassment. e.g. Catholic children have a right to go to school without having to listen to their church being described as a "despicable organisation" or (as on another current thread) a "vile organisation". You and many other posters seem to be having great difficulty with that concept. I cannot imagine why.

No one has suggested that any child must endure sectarian or secularist discrimination, yourself being the exception of course.

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:39pm

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I am Catholic myself and while I have had dust ups on the A&A forum, I have not come accross anti Catholic venom.

I disagree. There has been plenty of anti-Catholic venom on this forum and on this thread. I do concede that there is much less of it on this forum than on Politics ie, Politicalworld, or the Irish Times forum.

hare05 · 06-07-2011 1:43pm

crucamim wrote: »

dvpower wrote: »

But your discrimination theory would mean the the Dept. of Education was discriminating at secondary level, but not at primary - that doesn't sound right.

That is a very valid point. Why would the Dept of Education discriminate against Catholics at secondary level but not at primary level? But I am still left with the puzzle "Why does the RC Church own only 49% of the secondary schools while owing 92% of the primary schools? I am very, very suspicious.

Because brainwashing pre-teens is easier, and has a higher chance of holding through later life?

Do me a favour, YouTube 'Westboro Baptist children' and see for yourself what a closed religious system can do to a child at that age.

They are not Catholic (before you dismiss it on those grounds) but they are an example of how children are effectively ruined by bogus ideals before ever getting the chance to discover for themselves what life truly is.

I don't claim god to be fake. I don't have any reason to believe in one, or two, or whatever amount there may be.
All I know is that no perfect being would lay down such laws as Judaism and its spinoffs seem to want to enforce on the world.

You don't want your kids coming home questioning God, fair enough. I don't want any eventual kids I may have killing themselves over something as insignificant as homosexuality, or other silly sins.

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:45pm

koth wrote: »

No one has suggested that any child must endure sectarian or secularist discrimination, yourself being the exception of course.

Can you guarantee that in schools, not controlled by the Catholic Church, no Catholic child would be taught by an anti-Catholic teacher or insulted, assaulted or discriminated against by an anti-Catholic pupil or teacher?

Delirium · 06-07-2011 1:48pm

crucamim wrote: »

Can you guarantee that in schools, not controlled by the Catholic Church, no Catholic child would be taught by an anti-Catholic teacher or insulted, assaulted or discriminated against by an anti-Catholic pupil or teacher?

I can only say that all schools should have a policy of no hate speech/violence against any group, whether it be race,gender,sexuality or religion.

Thats more than you're willing to commit to, as you are willing to support religious discrimination.

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:50pm

koth wrote: »

There is no good reason for sectarianism in the public school system.

That might be your opinion. I have a different opinion.

Delirium · 06-07-2011 1:52pm

crucamim wrote: »

That might be your opinion. I have a different opinion.

and you're entitled to it, but that doesn't make discrimination ok.

hare05 · 06-07-2011 1:53pm

crucamim wrote: »

koth wrote: »

No one has suggested that any child must endure sectarian or secularist discrimination, yourself being the exception of course.

Can you guarantee that in schools, not controlled by the Catholic Church, no Catholic child would be taught by an anti-Catholic teacher or insulted, assaulted or discriminated against by an anti-Catholic pupil or teacher?

Of course we can. Simply fire any teacher who resorts to hate speech about any religion, ethnicity, sexuality or identity.

I would apply the same to Catholic schools but you may not have many teachers left

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:54pm

koth wrote: »

I can only say that all schools should have a policy of no hate speech/violence against any group, whether it be race,gender,sexuality or religion.

"Should have". Do they have? And even if they have, is there any guarantee that it would work?

There is one way and only one way to stop anti-Catholics abusing Catholics. That way is to deny them any opportunity to do so. If people, who post on this forum, cannot keep their anti-Catholic venom to themselves, why should anyone believe that they would behave differently towards Catholic colleagues, pupils, classmates etc?

robindch · 06-07-2011 1:54pm

crucamim wrote: »

Perhaps you will take a look at some of the posts which have been directed at me. Thank you.

If you feel that some other poster has violated the forum's rules, then in the gray panel to the left of the offending post, just click on the little triangle warning symbol (labelled 'Report Post', if you hover the mouse over it), fill out the report and one of the forum moderators will attend to the report as soon as possible.

Please be aware, though, that we do draw a firm distinction between (a) an idea being insulted and (b) a poster being insulted. The first will almost certainly be ignored. The second will almost certainly be actioned, up to and including a forum ban if deemed necessary.

crucamim · 06-07-2011 1:59pm

hare05 wrote: »

You don't want your kids coming home questioning God, fair enough.

That would be very far down by list of worries. My concerns are of a much more secular and serious nature. But, thank you, for not insulting me.

robindch · 06-07-2011 1:59pm

crucamim wrote: »

If people, who post on this forum, cannot keep their anti-Catholic venom to themselves, why should anyone believe that they would behave differently towards Catholic colleagues, pupils, classmates etc?

There's a world of difference between dislike of catholicism and dislike of catholics. As I said above, the first is tolerated here, the second isn't. You seem to have great difficulty in distinguishing the two.

Delirium · 06-07-2011 2:01pm

crucamim wrote: »

"Should have". Do they have? And even if they have, is there any guarantee that it would work?

I don't know the policy of every school, but I'd be relatively confident that most if not all schools don't allow violent/hateful behaviour in the schools.

There is one way and only one way to stop anti-Catholics abusing Catholics. That way is to deny them any opportunity to do so. If people, who post on this forum, cannot keep their anti-Catholic venom to themselves, why should anyone believe that they would behave differently towards Catholic colleagues, pupils, classmates etc?

Manners for a start. plus schools won't tolerate hateful/violent/anti-social behaviour in the classroom, so I still see no reason for sectarian schools.

hare05 · 06-07-2011 2:01pm

crucamim wrote: »

koth wrote: »

I can only say that all schools should have a policy of no hate speech/violence against any group, whether it be race,gender,sexuality or religion.

"Should have". Do they have? And even if they have, is there any guarantee that it would work?

There is one way and only one way to stop anti-Catholics abusing Catholics. That way is to deny them any opportunity to do so. If people, who post on this forum, cannot keep their anti-Catholic venom to themselves, why should anyone believe that they would behave differently towards Catholic colleagues, pupils, classmates etc?

Just to point out...

You say Catholics have the right to discriminate in catholic schools, but (rightly so) others should not discriminate against Catholics in secular (as in, unbiased) schools.

Yet your evidence of such a proposal's futility is discrimination you appear to face on the A&A forum?

You don't seem to realise that the majority rules that apply in a catholic school may apply on this board, in reverse?

The A&A board is not secular. There is an anti-religious air here, we can all see it. But it is much less prevalent than the ignorance present on the religious boards, and at least the people on this board seem to be interested in a fair outcome.

There are militant atheists who believe all mention of religion should be met with scorn. I have seen very little of that here. They are not forcing religion out of your child's life, they are simply pointing out that the way forward isn't to force religion into their lives.

Everything is relative. I can see your proposals as reasonable from your perspective, but not from theirs, not from mine, not from the perspective of other religions either.

Just step back and look at this from all points of view. What if positions were reversed? Would you accept it? I'd guess not.

philologos · 06-07-2011 2:02pm

crucamim: The most insulting thing I've read on this thread is that all non-Catholics are ultimately out to get Catholic children, and you claim that MrPudding was out to incite hatred?

CerebralCortex · 06-07-2011 2:02pm

Catholicism is bullsh!t! My parents are Catholics(kinda) yet I still love them.

robindch · 06-07-2011 2:04pm

philologos wrote: »

Who says anyone is pretending? It seems that they actually believe that their faith is true just as much as you don't believe that it is.

I'm distinguishing between statements like "I believe that the bible, in the original autographs, is the imperishable, infallible, fully consistent word of the creator of the universe." (which is true, since no doubt the person might well believe it).

Versus "You will burn in hell if you don't believe what I tell you" (which is as close to false as makes no difference, even within the terms of most versions of christianity and islam).

The problem is people who pretend to know things that they have absolutely no way of knowing.

dvpower · 06-07-2011 2:09pm

crucamim wrote: »

For the same reason that it happens on this secular forum. Some people teaching in a secular school could be anti-Catholic. Some pupils attending a secular school could be anti-Catholic.

Some people teaching in or attending the current catholic schools may be anti-catholic, but short of excluding all non catholic students and sacking all non catholic teachers, I don't see how you can guarantee catholic students wont come into contact with people who disagree with their religion.

crucamim wrote: »

Do you really believe that the children of the poster, who, on this thread, has described the Catholic church as "a despicable organisation", would not use the same language to Catholic classmates or to their Catholic teacher? What is in the cat is in the kitten.

They might (or not). Its just freedom of speech. Nothing to be too worried about - and prepares them for their secular workplaces.

MrPudding · 06-07-2011 2:36pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Catholicism is bullsh!t! My parents are Catholics(kinda) yet I still love them.

This is exactly the point. I absolutely despise the catholic church, and personally think it is evidence for the non existence of god, but I really do love my catholic Mum.

dvpower wrote: »

Some people teaching in or attending the current catholic schools may be anti-catholic, but short of excluding all non catholic students and sacking all non catholic teachers, I don't see how you can guarantee catholic students wont come into contact with people who disagree with their religion.

They might (or not). Its just freedom of speech. Nothing to be too worried about - and prepares them for their secular workplaces.

Posting on an internet board is very different being in a school. I am not a teacher, so it does not really apply to me, but if I worked in a school I would likely not use the same words I do here. If I did, I would fully expect to be disciplined for it.

My children, particularly my oldest, are well aware of my views on religion, though I do tone things down a bit for them. Even if I did not, I would not expect them to express any anti-catholic, or indeed anti-anything, sentiments to people as I have raised them not to.

I chose not to send them to catholic schools, I was luck that that option was available to me, but they are in schools with a “broadly christian” ethos. They do not hide their opinions, but neither do they force them on others or mock believers for the ridiculous beliefs they hold, I have raised them better.

But here is the thing, when you come onto an internet board called “Atheism & Agnosticism” please do not expect your beliefs or institutions to be respected. They do nothing to deserve respect and most certainly will get none from me.

MrP

Turtwig · 06-07-2011 2:45pm

philologos wrote: »

crucamim: The most insulting thing I've read on this thread is that all non-Catholics are ultimately out to get Catholic children, and you claim that MrPudding was out to incite hatred?

S/he made the same claim about me in After Hours. I just ignored it.:D

crucamim · 06-07-2011 3:05pm

dvpower wrote: »

Some people teaching in or attending the current catholic schools may be anti-catholic, but short of excluding all non catholic students and sacking all non catholic teachers, I don't see how you can guarantee catholic students wont come into contact with people who disagree with their religion.

Well said. I believe that Catholic schools should exclude all non-Catholci students and should employ only practising Catholics. That is the whole point of Catholic schools - to keep Catholics safe.

crucamim · 06-07-2011 3:07pm

philologos wrote: »

crucamim: The most insulting thing I've read on this thread is that all non-Catholics are ultimately out to get Catholic children, and you claim that MrPudding was out to incite hatred?

When or where did I state that "all non-Catholic are out to get Catholic children"? Please stick to facts.

Doctor DooM · 06-07-2011 3:07pm

crucamim wrote: »

Well said. I believe that Catholic schools should exclude all non-Catholci students and should employ only practising Catholics. That is the whole point of Catholic schools - to keep Catholics safe.

The point of secularism is to keep everyone safe. I think I will take that instead, thank you.

MrPudding · 06-07-2011 3:08pm

crucamim wrote: »

Well said. I believe that Catholic schools should exclude all non-Catholci students and should employ only practising Catholics. That is the whole point of Catholic schools - to keep Catholics safe.

I am not sure there are enough “catholic” teachers that would come up to your standards, and for that I am thankful.

MrP

NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

Comments