School patronage

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What I've been suggesting is that the teaching of religion is not the "waste of time" some suggest it is.

I agree it's not a "waste of time". It is a shameless abuse of the trust of a child to tell him or her a series of outrageous, self-serving lies.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They are not public schools.

They are state funded, religious ethos, private schools.

The state has full responsibility for how the children are treated in them, just because its catholic ethos does not mean they can do what they want.

lazygal wrote: »

So let the church pay for their own schools and stop taking state money.

Why?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They are state funded, religious ethos, private schools.

How would you rate the RCC's record of childcare in this country?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why?

Because children deserve better than having to endure state funded indoctrination.

robindch wrote: »

I agree it's not a "waste of time". It is a shameless abuse of the trust of a child to tell him or her a series of outrageous, self-serving lies.

Says you. But opinions differ.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

ITo date it's been done (for better or worse) by using existing church-run schools with an opt-out of religious aspects.

There is no opt-out,

Religion is already integrated into other subjects, hell you yourself have said you'd like it that way also. So you yourself prefer that there is no way of opting out.

Cabaal wrote: »

Now you're just trolling
:rolleyes:

If anything moving religion to church's makes far more sense, we know from the RCC own stats that Church's are under used so running a Sunday school service either before or after mass makes perfect sense.

This ensures parents are more involved as well, after all little kids need their mammy and daddy* to bring them to the building of the holy god and they'll be bringing them to mass every week anyway...won't they?

*I say mammy and daddys because we know the RCC doesn't like daddys and daddys or mammys and mammys.

I agree with an awful lot of what you said there.

I think no-one should rely on schools to teach their children abour their faith and families are the primary places to do this. Sunday schools and adult faith formation should be much more widely available than it is.

But faith formation in schools is fine, as far as it goes.

lazygal wrote: »

Because children deserve better than having to endure state funded indoctrination.

What about an education according to their parents wishes?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What about an education according to their parents wishes?

Parents can indoctrinate their children in their own time with their own money like any other non curriculum hobby.

Cabaal wrote: »

There is no opt-out,

Religion is already integrated into other subjects, hell you yourself have said you'd like it that way also. So you yourself prefer that there is no way of opting out.

I was giving examples of how it might be done - it doesn't appear to be the case at the moment. According to Minister Quinn it's a very black-and-white choice - either the kids learn maths or they learn about Jesus.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What about an education according to their parents wishes?

Yeah, what about that?
What about that none existent opt-out?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

I agree it's not a "waste of time". It is a shameless abuse of the trust of a child to tell him or her a series of outrageous, self-serving lies.

Says you. But opinions differ.

So you think it's good to tell self-serving lies to kids under threat of burning in hell for eternity?

lazygal wrote: »

Parents can indoctrinate their children in their own time with their own money like any other non curriculum hobby.

It's their parents taxes that pay for it.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's their parents taxes that pay for it.

My taxes pay for it too. Maybe the churches could issue refunds if you don't use it.

robindch wrote: »

So you think it's good to tell self-serving lies to kids under threat of burning in hell for eternity?

"And when did you stop beating your wife?" :rolleyes:

It's good to teach children about the christian faith. It's good that religious communities have the right to educate their children in an ethos they want.

lazygal wrote: »

My taxes pay for it too. Maybe the churches could issue refunds if you don't use it.

I don't like how all of my taxes are spent (I hate CIE for example)

I Heart Internet wrote: »

"And when did you stop beating your wife?" :rolleyes:

It's good to teach children about the christian faith. It's good that religious communities have the right to educate their children in an ethos they want.

Only the Christian faith? What's wrong with the other faiths?

robindch wrote: »

How would you rate the RCC's record of childcare in this country?

Disasterous in places.

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What about an education according to their parents wishes?

The state should determine an appropriate curriculum - not the parents.

If the parents wish to have their children instructed in ballet, karate or fairytale-ism then so be it. But it should be done after school at the parents expense.

By the way if religion is such an important aspect of an education system, why aren't u pushing to have it made compulsory at University level?
That would be just ridiculous now wouldn't it? Exactly!

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't like how all of my taxes are spent (I hate CIE for example)

Its not simply a case of not liking,
Its a case of discrimination against none Catholics in state funded, state responsible schools

eyescreamcone wrote: »

By the way if religion is such an important aspect of an education system, why aren't u pushing to have it made compulsory at University level?
That would be just ridiculous now wouldn't it? Exactly!

Only if you consider primary education to be equivalent and as fundamental as university education.

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They are not public schools.

They are state funded, religious ethos, private schools.

Then the state should definitely cut funding until it can provide a public school system.

eyescreamcone

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Only if you consider primary education to be equivalent and as fundamental as university education.

Get them young I think you mean ;-)

lazygal wrote: »

Only the Christian faith? What's wrong with the other faiths?

The absence of Christ. Other than that they're A-OK with me.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Only if you consider primary education to be equivalent and as fundamental as university education.

Primary education sets the building blocks for a child's future education, its pretty important.

How a kid interacts in primary school can have a long lasting impact on their later life and education, of course you know that so thats why you are all for "get them while their young"

I Heart Internet wrote: »

robindch wrote:

So you think it's good to tell self-serving lies to kids under threat of burning in hell for eternity?

It's good to teach children about the christian faith.

So unbelievers burning in hell is one of these optional catholic things?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's good that religious communities have the right to educate their children in an ethos they want.

Just a thought, but what about keeping schools for education and churches for indoctrination?

Cabaal wrote: »

Primary education sets the building blocks for a child's future education, its pretty important."

That was my point.

kylith

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm sure many won't agree with me but I've always thought it a major failure in imagination to suggest that the teaching of religion (in primary schools) cannot be made to have great benefits to other aspects of education.

It's akin to suggesting that learning from a history book doesn't improve a child's reading ability. Or that learing about nature doesn't improve one's spelling and vocabulary. Or that memorising the names of the 12 apostles or the 10 commandments doesn't improve memory skills.

People may be entirely against it for other reasons, but suggesting that 2.5 hours per week on religion is somehow "wasted" or dead-time is wrong.

What literacy improvements could be made in a religious class that couldn't be made by using the time for more English classes, or classes which teach about all religions?

There is no justification using 2.5 hours a week teaching about Ikkle Baby Jesus when so many young people are leaving school with insufficient numeracy skills.