Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But all schools receive funding from the state - to pay their teachers (even fee-paying schools).




I still say "fee paying state-funded schools" and "non-fee paying state-funded schools" most closely reflects the reality.

Yes, poor wording on my part. I of course meant schools that receive the majority of their funding from the state over those that do not.

All schools have fees, some just call them "voluntary contributions".

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For the LAST time - No They Do Not.

Non-Denominational/Secular schools do not receive any State funding.

They are barred from doing so by the current Dept. of Education rules and have no choice but to be privately funded.

I know this for a fact as I went to a fully private (i.e. received not one penny/cent/shekel/zloty/rupee etc etc from the State) Secular school from 1st class to Leaving Cert.

I think it's fair to say most private schools have their teachers' salaries paid though?

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yes, poor wording on my part. I of course meant schools that receive the majority of their funding from the state over those that do not.

All schools have fees, some just call them "voluntary contributions".



I think it's fair to say most private schools have their teachers' salaries paid though?

As long as they are classified as either denominational/ multi-denominational.

No 'religious' ethos - even a wishy washy 'multi' one = not a brass farthing for anything.

Ironically we used to do sports in a Convent grounds as the school couldn't afford playing fields and they cut a great deal with the Nuns, most of whom were elderly and had no need of a hockey pitch/tennis court.

Indeed the school moved premises to cheaper 'accommodation' on a few occasions when it could no longer afford the rent.

Only in the last few years of it's existence did it receive any State funding and this was after the last of the original owners died and her heir had no interest and wanted to sell/close the school. The Dept. of Education stepped in and for the first time since its foundation in 1928 the school had a 'religious' ethos - it closed down three years later as it had essentially alienated it's 'core' supporters.

Nor was mine the only school of it's kind in Cork - or I imagine in Ireland - we regularly played hockah against other secular private schools.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairfness, Bannasidhe, the fact that the non-denominational/secular school that you went to received no state funding does not mean that no such school receives state funding. Or even that the reason your school received no funding was because of its non-denominational/secular nature.

And, as is well known, most private fee-paying schools in Ireland do receive substantial state funding. I'm not aware that there has ever been a rule forbidding any state funding if a school has no denominational character. Historically, the usual barrier to state funding was not lack of a religious/denominational character, but reluctance to teach to the Department's curriculum, particularly as regards the Irish language.

I'm very open to being proven wrong on this, but I do need some evidence.

Have just spent the last 15 minutes attempting to navigate the DOE's website to find the regulations re: funding - I was unsuccessful.

I did notice they claim to fund non-denominational schools now so perhaps they have changed the rules and I am behind the times on this - however, against that I am not aware of the existence of any Non- Denominational schools that receive public funding and other sources (Atheist Ireland for example) states there are currently no secular schools which begs the question if funding is available - why no secular schools...not even one.

If someone can provide the name of a non-denominational/secular school that receives funding from the Irish government and I will gladly concede that I am wrong.

AND now I am hideously late for a meeting.....:eek:

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm very open to being proven wrong on this, but I do need some evidence.

Given the logistical difficulties in proving a negative, especially when the goals seem to be quietly shifting to from "there exists no actual state school(*) with a non-denomational 'ethos' and curriculum" to "perhaps it would be theoretically possible for a fee-paying school to get some state funding, regardless of whether one actually exists at present", perhaps you might try to meet us halfway and advance some evidence for the existence of such schools, such approved patrons, or even scope for such in the funding regulations, whichever of these it is you're currently claiming? Just one example of any of these would surely be easier to produce than the categorical absence of all of them, as it were.

(*) Standard IHI disclaimer applies.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yes, poor wording on my part. I of course meant schools that receive the majority of their funding from the state over those that do not.

I think you're making too many concessions to the War on Language, here. If one can argue that one has to take off one's hat in church because "it's the custom", it's surely not too much to be asked to accept that words mean what people agree they customarily mean, as opposed to some agenda-driven tendentious postmodern take thereon.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah, I think I'm no more guilty of doing this than anyone else here. Perhaps less so.

Perhaps marginally less so than BB. But beginning to acknowledge your Sins Against Topicness might be the first step on the way to repentance and amendment...

And the issue that we think we're discussing here - I think that (how many Christians in Ireland) went out the window long ago.

I'm sure there's a "tossing" funny in here, but I'll let it go. You may have not noticed, but every so often we do return to the OT. Why else were we discussing initiatory and communicant status, for example, or what a "minimal" set of required beliefs might be? Then we almost immediately get deflected by "oh, you can't take surveys at face value (unless I happen to like what they're saying)", "the census is the best possible source on religious belief, notwithstanding that it doesn't ask anything about religious belief", "the census, 'tis only a harmless bit of fun", "box-ticking as a religious freedom", and so on.

Lets agree that what we're doing here is having a protracted back-and-forth where I quite like the RCC and others dislike them.

Let's at least be honest with ourselves about it.

We can certainly agree that that's what you're doing, evidently.

It's rather dismissive to say that not wanting to have "box-ticking" Catholics over-counted on the census, or more importantly as a supposed "silent majority" in political debate, or for the "demographics" of pie-slicing the educational sector are simply functions of people "disliking" the RCC. Indeed, I'd like to think that it'd be possible to "quite like" the RCC or any other religious organisation, and still want accurate statistics, good public policy, and an absence of "screw thy neighbour, they're a bunch of miserable (slightly over-formal) apostates and heretics" attitudes.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I infer from its name that it's a "model school" (i.e. one of the very few that IHI says we should be calling a "state school", as opposed to the many that most of us would call a "state school"), and so won't have a "patron" per the national school model. I find all of one mention "religion" on its website, deeply embedded in an RTF (how quaint!) enrollment form, and none at all of "denomination". So, no idea!

Apparently that's not quite right. The MES is the owner and the patron. It was helpfully pointed out to me that there's a "patron's nominee" on the board of management, for example. (Just happens to be a Very Rev, Canon, and Administrator at the Pro-Cathedral, as it happens...)

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Isn't the whole point of the RCC that it's the one true word of God as passed through his one true voice piece?

Is the whole reason all the other churches exist not supposed to be that THEY are the ones where your choice or issues matter?

His 'voice piece' would be the Holy Spirit. And Catholic teaching is clear that the Spirit speaks through many channels, including the lay faithful. Suggesting that the gerontocracy is the sole interpreter of God's will is to misunderstand Catholic teaching (ironically enough!).

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No.

I really think you don't know what you're talking about.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's mutual.

The Roman Catholic Church is not "the one true word of God". It's an assembly of the faithful. Look it up.

They would absolutely describe themselves as the one true word of God. What exactly are you basing this on?

Zillah wrote: »

They would absolutely describe themselves as the one true word of God. What exactly are you basing this on?

No, they really wouldn't. I double dog dare you to find one source that says the Church is the one true word of God.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The term church (Anglo-Saxon, cirice, circe; Modern German, Kirche; Swedish, Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greek ekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which the New Testament writers denote the society founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

As signifying the Church, the word Ecclesia is used by Christian writers, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted sense.

• It is employed to denote all who, from the beginning of the world, have believed in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace. In this sense, it is sometimes distinguished, signifying the Church before the Old Covenant, the Church of the Old Covenant, or the Church of the New Covenant. Thus St. Gregory (Book V, Epistle 18) writes: "Sancti ante legem, sancti sub lege, sancti sub gratiâ, omnes hi . . . in membris Ecclesiæ sunt constituti" (The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace — all these are constituted members of the Church).
• It may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints. Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.
• It is further employed to signify the Church Militant of the New Testament.

etc. etc.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm disagreeing with the ridiculous statement that the Roman Catholic Church claims it is "the one true word of God."

It's not a word. It's an assembly of the faithful.

You're the one who used that expression, I don't care if say "word" or "assembly" or whatever you like - it doesn't change the fact that they believe themselves to be God's representatives on Earth, and those that defy their laws are in error.