Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Communion and Confirmation grants scrapped...

1356789

Comments

  • #62
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    robp wrote: »
    I hate the GAA. Even my though hypothetical child can opt out of this and play ruby instead its a disgrace that that those who opt in are taught to love hurling and football. The organisation who runs this is unaccountable and unelected by the public (the GAA). That is the bones of your argument. It becomes even more mad when one bears in mind that the educational roles models we hold ourselves against (Finland) teach directional religion classes just like Ireland.

    What? Not too sure what your trying to say here. Are you equating the encouragement of different sports with the teaching of religion in schools?
    In many cases in this country parents are forced to opt in to religious ethos public funded schools as they simply do not have another reasonable choice due to where they live.
    My argument is no public funded school should have any religious ethos or teach one religion over the other which is exactly what happens when religion class time is devoted to preparing for one specific religions ceremonies.
    If parents want their kids to go to a religious ethos school it is they who should have to go the extra mile and not the other way around especially in the case of publicly funded schools.


  • #63
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    VinLieger wrote: »
    What? Not too sure what your trying to say here. Are you equating the encouragement of different sports with the teaching of religion in schools?
    In many cases in this country parents are forced to opt in to religious ethos public funded schools as they simply do not have another reasonable choice due to where they live.
    My argument is no public funded school should have any religious ethos or teach one religion over the other which is exactly what happens when religion class time is devoted to preparing for one specific religions ceremonies.
    If parents want their kids to go to a religious ethos school it is they who should have to go the extra mile and not the other way around especially in the case of publicly funded schools.

    No they may go to a Catholic school but I have never heard of people being forced to opt in despite their parents wishes. The schools are being reogranised so there will be demand according to local requirements very soon. So this central core of your argument will be invalid shortly.


  • #64
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    robp wrote: »
    No they may go to a Catholic school but I have never heard of people being forced to opt in despite their parents wishes. The schools are being reogranised so there will be demand according to local requirements very soon. So this central core of your argument will be invalid shortly.

    I know and i think its great the Eduacate Together is growing however i still completely disagree with public money going anywhere near religion, so will never be happy with public schools using religion class for communion/confirmation prep.


  • #65
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    VinLieger wrote: »
    I know and i think its great the Eduacate Together is growing however i still completely disagree with public money going anywhere near religion, so will never be happy with public schools using religion class for communion/confirmation prep.

    So basically you will never be happy with public money being spent except when it is spent in a totally secular way - even if your idea of 'secular' is not exactly the idea that most believe that secularism is; that means 'freedom' and not repression of people.

    So people who pay taxes, and are Christian should have no choice except to send their children to private schools if they are Christian with teachers paid by the parents alone?... and the state in order to have a secular view should just exclude those teachers completely from the pay roll from the Dept. of Education (strange) - and obviously public funding should only go to schools with an atheist ethos who teach, well religion, but with an atheist ethos for their hours of schooling - well, because the state says so..and not the people they collect the public purse from.


    That's nice.

    That's not what 'secular' is however. It's really twisting secular and state and people badly to think this is remotely democratic - insofar as some kind of ideology of the state that should impose on the people.

    That's not freedom, that's a dictatorship. That's a kind of weird idea that those who govern us are always 'nice' and we don't need legislation to protect people from the 'nice' State.

    It's not freedom, but it's at least a heads up to how you and your ilk think - so thanks, I'll defend freedom against this kind of thinking, and try to educate my kids to do so too, I'm so sorry you missed out. Your ideal is not one of 'freedom' at all, it's merely one of compromise even if you don't know it...thanks, but no thanks.


  • #66
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    lmaopml wrote: »
    So people who pay taxes, and are Christian should have no choice except to send their children to private schools if they are Christian

    They could teach their children about religion themselves or have some sort of after school classes for religion
    lmaopml wrote: »
    well, because the state says so..and not the people they collect the public purse from.

    Money is collected from Jews, Muslims and atheists as well.
    lmaopml wrote: »
    That's nice.

    That's not what 'secular' is however. It's really twisting secular and state and people badly to think this is remotely democratic - insofar as some kind of ideology of the state that should impose on the people.

    That's not freedom, that's a dictatorship. That's a kind of weird idea that those who govern us are always 'nice' and we don't need legislation to protect people from the 'nice' State.

    It's not freedom, but it's at least a heads up to how you and your ilk think - so thanks, I'll defend freedom against this kind of thinking, and try to educate my kids to do so too, I'm so sorry you missed out. Your ideal is not one of 'freedom' at all, it's merely one of compromise even if you don't know it...thanks, but no thanks.

    There isnt freedom for many people who have to baptise their children so they can get priority into school


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    They could teach their children about religion themselves or have some sort of after school classes for religion
    So could history so could maths but if there is public demand there is no reason why it shouldn't be taught in schools.

    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Money is collected from Jews, Muslims and atheists as well.
    Which is exactly why Ireland specifically has Jewish and Muslim public schools as well as ET and VEC.

    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    There isnt freedom for many people who have to baptise their children so they can get priority into school
    Do we really know this? We have no idea if this is happening to any number of people or if it was a one off case.


  • #68
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    lmaopml wrote: »
    So people who pay taxes, and are Christian should have no choice except to send their children to private schools if they are Christian with teachers paid by the parents alone?

    As a secular nation Ireland should not privilege one religious view over another. What you are arguing is that schools should privilege christianity over every other religion and atheism, the exact opposite of secularism.

    Also there is an alternative to sending your children to private school, get your local priest to teach your children during some kind of religious Sunday school. Most denominations do it in most other countries, and educating the flock is one of the duties of the priesthood.

    But in all honesty the only way religion should be taught in schools is dispassionately, showing how all the good points are actually common to nearly all human systems, how the bad points are inventively evil, and how improbable each and every religion is when you take a bs detector to them.


  • #69
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    But in all honesty the only way religion should be taught in schools is dispassionately, showing how all the good points are actually common to nearly all human systems, how the bad points are inventively evil, and how improbable each and every religion is when you take a bs detector to them.

    If you want to go down that route, take it to A&A or the megathread.


  • #70
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    If only religions had regular access to purpose built buildings for mass indoctrination on a regular basis......until then, what can you do but get the state funded schools and teachers to do it.......


  • #71
    lmaopml
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    lazygal wrote: »
    If only religions had regular access to purpose built buildings for mass indoctrination on a regular basis......until then, what can you do but get the state funded schools and teachers to do it.......

    What are you saying lazygal? That you would like to mass indoctrinate like the way Dawkins has a Summer Camp for Atheists..lol....

    You seem to be saying that the State should be Secular - but Secular means Atheist? That's not what it means....It's a terrible pity but people are different, and secular doesn't imply Atheist.

    Don't you realise that freedom of religion - whether you value this or no - is absolutely a human right? Or is this something that you think should not be? Don't you know or realise that every single brick of every single Church and School was built by actual 'people' who wanted those Churches and those Schools in their very own communities? They fought very hard to build them - they shouldn't have been allowed?

    You can call other human beings all the names you like, you can say that we 'indoctrinate' etc. etc. and so on, which is totally bizarre considering - but don't for one second think that you are not 'indoctrinating' every time you say what you value to both the young and old, to your own children etc. - or indeed have the charity of mind to help others under your 'banner' of atheist freedom - you don't like the 'tag' of a religion, but you know what that's what you look like, it's what you talk like, it's what you walk like - so most people will just say what they see - a religion, an agenda etc.


    You have an 'ethos' a 'worldview', and outlook - you are no different to any other person-

    Not special. Just another person, that's all with a worldview - an atheistic one, that sees the world through your lens, without God.

    I find it odd that you don't like sporting the badge, and shy away from doing so - part of a group is the most awful thing an atheist could be part of, and yet one only has to open their two eyes to see you...


    You seem to think that you are 'different'...because of your worldview. You're not, you are just human, with an opinion about how Catholics or Christians of any colour, or anybody else, shouldn't have schools or families that put in the effort to build them in their community, because the world should always be perfect and people never felt the need to build communities until you decided it....because you 'walk' on the earth now it should just be your way.

    That's not how things work. You are going to have to get used to the idea that there are Christians, there are religious, and yes we walk on the same planet you do, and we will be part of the same community too.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    lmaopml wrote: »
    That's not how things work. You are going to have to get used to the idea that there are Christians, there are religious, and yes we walk on the same planet you do, and we will be part of the same community too.

    Thats all well and good but i dont see why my taxes should pay for religious ethos schools when the parents could just as easily teach their children about the childs "chosen" religion outside school or like in most other truely secular countries have the church do it cus you know its their job.
    NO state money should go towards any form of religious promotion be it atheist, christian, agnostic, muslim, jewish or whatever that is what secular means and not your distorted view of "i want it so it should be available to me".


  • #73
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Thats all well and good but i dont see why my taxes should pay for religious ethos schools when the parents could just as easily teach their children about the childs "chosen" religion outside school or like in most other truely secular countries have the church do it cus you know its their job.
    NO state money should go towards any form of religious promotion be it atheist, christian, agnostic, muslim, jewish or whatever that is what secular means and not your distorted view of "i want it so it should be available to me".

    What on earth do you mean? Your definition includes the includes the US while the most progressive countries Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and even in parts of France do publicly fund religious schools.


  • #74
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    lmaopml wrote: »
    What are you saying lazygal? That you would like to mass indoctrinate like the way Dawkins has a Summer Camp for Atheists..lol....

    You seem to be saying that the State should be Secular - but Secular means Atheist? That's not what it means....It's a terrible pity but people are different, and secular doesn't imply Atheist.

    Don't you realise that freedom of religion - whether you value this or no - is absolutely a human right? Or is this something that you think should not be? Don't you know or realise that every single brick of every single Church and School was built by actual 'people' who wanted those Churches and those Schools in their very own communities? They fought very hard to build them - they shouldn't have been allowed?

    You can call other human beings all the names you like, you can say that we 'indoctrinate' etc. etc. and so on, which is totally bizarre considering - but don't for one second think that you are not 'indoctrinating' every time you say what you value to both the young and old, to your own children etc. - or indeed have the charity of mind to help others under your 'banner' of atheist freedom - you don't like the 'tag' of a religion, but you know what that's what you look like, it's what you talk like, it's what you walk like - so most people will just say what they see - a religion, an agenda etc.


    You have an 'ethos' a 'worldview', and outlook - you are no different to any other person-

    Not special. Just another person, that's all with a worldview - an atheistic one, that sees the world through your lens, without God.

    I find it odd that you don't like sporting the badge, and shy away from doing so - part of a group is the most awful thing an atheist could be part of, and yet one only has to open their two eyes to see you...


    You seem to think that you are 'different'...because of your worldview. You're not, you are just human, with an opinion about how Catholics or Christians of any colour, or anybody else, shouldn't have schools or families that put in the effort to build them in their community, because the world should always be perfect and people never felt the need to build communities until you decided it....because you 'walk' on the earth now it should just be your way.

    That's not how things work. You are going to have to get used to the idea that there are Christians, there are religious, and yes we walk on the same planet you do, and we will be part of the same community too.


    That's lovely. I still don't want my taxes paying for religious indoctrination. I'll 'indoctrinate' my child on my own time and money, and send her to be educated in school. Other religions might follow suit.


  • #75
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    robp wrote: »
    What on earth do you mean? Your definition includes the includes the US while the most progressive countries Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and even in parts of France do publicly fund religious schools.

    Fair enough im wrong there but i do believe public schools that receive tax payers money should have no religious ethos. Not gonna change my mind on it.
    Religion has no place being taught or encourage in schools UNLESS its part of history class or a proper religion class where children are taught the beliefs and history of all major religions without a bias towards any of them. Now im out of school 10 years and my memory is slightly hazy but ive been told religious education in secondary schools is getting alot closer to this than it was previously.
    If parents want to teach their children about their own specific religion i cannot understand why they cant do it themselves? why does it have to be done in schools?


  • #76
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Fair enough im wrong there but i do believe public schools that receive tax payers money should have no religious ethos. Not gonna change my mind on it.
    Religion has no place being taught or encourage in schools UNLESS its part of history class or a proper religion class where children are taught the beliefs and history of all major religions without a bias towards any of them. Now im out of school 10 years and my memory is slightly hazy but ive been told religious education in secondary schools is getting alot closer to this than it was previously.
    If parents want to teach their children about their own specific religion i cannot understand why they cant do it themselves? why does it have to be done in schools?
    Maybe because parents are not teachers and do not want to be.
    So you really prefer us to take the US route over central European or Scandinavian?


  • #77
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    robp wrote: »
    Maybe because parents are not teachers and do not want to be.
    So you really prefer us to take the US route over central European or Scandinavian?


    Parents are the primary educators according to the Irish constitution. Why aren't parents able to teach/indoctrinate their children in their chosen faith, with the help of religious personell? Why do schools funded by the state have to fulfill the role?


  • #78
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    robp wrote: »
    Maybe because parents are not teachers and do not want to be.
    So you really prefer us to take the US route over central European or Scandinavian?

    So the parents can force their beliefs onto their children but dont have to be responsible for teaching them about it? Yeah thats bullshit.
    We are our own country i dont understand why we have to compare ourselves all the time and specifically with our unique history as far as the catholic churches influence i think we need religious influence removed from all aspects of education.
    You choose to baptise your child into the church therefore you are responsible for its religious education not the state


  • #79
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    lazygal wrote: »
    Parents are the primary educators according to the Irish constitution. Why aren't parents able to teach/indoctrinate their children in their chosen faith, with the help of religious personell? Why do schools funded by the state have to fulfill the role?
    Do you use that argument for other school subjects and why not?
    VinLieger wrote: »
    So the parents can force their beliefs onto their children but dont have to be responsible for teaching them about it? Yeah thats bullshit.
    We are our own country i dont understand why we have to compare ourselves all the time and specifically with our unique history as far as the catholic churches influence i think we need religious influence removed from all aspects of education.
    You choose to baptise your child into the church therefore you are responsible for its religious education not the state
    Fortunately we live in a pluralist state which accommodates diversity and does not give preference to your worldview.


  • #80
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    robp wrote: »
    Do you use that argument for other school subjects and why not?


    Other school subjects are facts, like 2+2=4, the correct use of grammar and history/geography, religion is stuff like dead people coming back to life, a few fishes and loaves feeding thousands and magic wafer eating ceremonies. Why can't parents teach the tenets of the faith to which they adhere at home, why do publicly funded schools need to do it?


  • #81
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    robp wrote: »
    Do you use that argument for other school subjects and why not?

    Fortunately we live in a pluralist state which accommodates diversity and does not give preference to your worldview.

    Every other school subject is taught as fact, religion is a system of beliefs and having it taught in schools I believe gives the mistaken impression to children, especially very young children, that its a fact and not belief and its not okay to question it.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    kennryyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69 ✭✭kennryyr


    lmaopml wrote: »
    even if your idea of 'secular' is not exactly the idea that most believe that secularism is; that means 'freedom' and not repression of people.

    Unfortunately I really don't beleive you understand what the term 'secular' means in the context being discussed.

    No one is asking for the repression of religion as you seem to think we are, we really have no problem what you teach your child on your own time. We are saying that the State should not fund money to provide education for a subject that has no grounds in reality or fact.

    It is as simple as that. Young school children being forced to say prayers at different times of the day to worship an all powerful God to me is quite absurd and to be frank, very disturbing in the 21st century.


  • #83
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭robp


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Every other school subject is taught as fact, religion is a system of beliefs and having it taught in schools I believe gives the mistaken impression to children, especially very young children, that its a fact and not belief and its not okay to question it.

    So you are saying questioning is not to be encouraged in 'factual subjects'? I think your muddling your own argument. Surely education is worthless if it does not encourage us to question? Subjects like history, geography, science, language are always in a state of flux, changing and developing according to progression, trend and time. I know for a fact questioning is encouraged in religion and in all other subjects as it should be. Religion is a belief system but actually many subjects like history are frequently in the belief system territory.

    kennryyr wrote: »
    Unfortunately I really don't beleive you understand what the term 'secular' means in the context being discussed.

    No one is asking for the repression of religion as you seem to think we are, we really have no problem what you teach your child on your own time. We are saying that the State should not fund money to provide education for a subject that has no grounds in reality or fact.

    It is as simple as that. Young school children being forced to say prayers at different times of the day to worship an all powerful God to me is quite absurd and to be frank, very disturbing in the 21st century.

    See unless I am misreading your post your actually disagreement is religion education itself. From your post I gather you would would restrict all directional religious education? Public and private school education? Usually people extend the argument to public schools. Wow we are really in North Korea territory now. Well you know what, actually a lot of people think your worldview has no basis in reality and is giving rise to delusions in children.


  • #84
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    robp wrote: »
    worldview has no basis in reality and is giving rise to delusions in children.
    :D:D:D:D:D

    Ah, my children won't be told a man who died 2,000 years ago, rose from the dead, then died again won't be coming back to save from from eternal damnation, but while they're waiting they should attend particular services and eat magic bread so they stay on the straight and narrow?


    Of all things, delusions won't be featuring in our children's indoctrination, and if it comes from school teachers they'll be well equipped to question the teachers' basis for such delusions.


  • #85
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    That's an impressive collection of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and question begging, lazygal. But I'm sure you could have fit something in there about zombie Jesus.

    B-

    Also, the fact-value distinction that is being claimed here is, I suggest, overly simplistic. Science and values do meet - it's how we decide whether something is ethical or not. Similarity value based disciplines can employ science. Speaking of values, I see a lot a value based reasoning going on here.


  • #86
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    lazygal wrote: »
    :D:D:D:D:D

    Ah, my children won't be told a man who died 2,000 years ago, rose from the dead, then died again won't be coming back to save from from eternal damnation, but while they're waiting they should attend particular services and eat magic bread so they stay on the straight and narrow?

    Mod note: A perfect opportunity to point people towards the charter, particularly:
    Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged. While discussion is encouraged, each member is expected to remain within the boundaries of taste and decency. If you disagree with a opinion expressed, please do so in a well mannered fashion.


  • #87
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    lazygal wrote: »
    Parents are the primary educators according to the Irish constitution. Why aren't parents able to teach/indoctrinate their children in their chosen faith, with the help of religious personell? Why do schools funded by the state have to fulfill the role?
    I think it is because schools are acting in loco parentis ... and the vast majority of parents wish to have their tax money used to educate their children in their Theistic philosophical outlook ... in addition to the Atheistic one, that is the default philosophy in public schools.
    Its actually about parity of esteem ... and not the domination and imposition of Secular Atheistic beliefs over all others ... that has happened in American Public Schools.


  • #88
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,497 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    J C wrote: »
    I think it is because schools are acting in loco parentis ... and the vast majority of parents wish to have their tax money used to educate their children in their Theistic philosophical outlook ... in addition to the Atheistic one, that is the default philosophy in public schools.
    Its actually about parity of esteem ... and not the domination and imposition of Secular Atheistic beliefs over all others ... that has happened in American Public Schools.

    I have no problem with children being taught about all religions but when class times are used to promote one religions views and its ceremonies over the other like in the case of confirmations and communions thats where the problem is, especially in regard to tax being used to fund it.


  • #89
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    robp wrote: »
    What on earth do you mean? Your definition includes the includes the US while the most progressive countries Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and even in parts of France do publicly fund religious schools.

    If a thousand people jumped off the Achill cliffs would you do it?

    Just because others do something doesn't make it right. It just makes a lot of people, or in this case legislatures, wrong.


  • #90
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    If a thousand people jumped off the Achill cliffs would you do it?

    Just because others do something doesn't make it right. It just makes a lot of people, or in this case legislatures, wrong.

    Theses are also not secular countries.

    German for example has a constitution that says religion should be taught in schools. This was born out of the idea that WWII was caused by a lack of ethical education in young Germans. It was made when the vast majority of German's were Christian.

    Muslims in German are now fighting an up hill battle to gain the same style of classes.

    Which just highlights exactly why you need a secular system like the US. You cannot practically cater for everyone (nor would you necessarily want to), so the only fair thing is to cater to no one.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Zombrex wrote: »
    German for example has a constitution that says religion should be taught in schools. This was born out of the idea that WWII was caused by a lack of ethical education in young Germans. It was made when the vast majority of German's were Christian.

    This despite Germany being the most christian of nations, lead by a stridently christian regime during world war two. It seems the Germans forgot to learn something about Nazism.


Advertisement
Advertisement