nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should religious induction of children be banned?

FunLover18

Article 44, section 2.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states

Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practise of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen

Like the vast majority of Irish children;

1) As a baby I was baptised and I think we can all agree that babies are in no position to understand the word ‘religion’ let alone what it means.
I attended a national school which like most was named after a saint and like most schools it had a Catholic ethos; religion class involved learning prayers, the story of Jesus, etc. There was little taught about other religions.
2) Aged 7/8 (I can’t remember) I received my first communion. This was a school event, a priest would come in every now and again to give special lessons and run through the procedure. I don’t remember ever being offered a choice. At the time I just understood it to be the norm and something all children did.
3) Aged 12 I was confirmed. Again no choice, and was led to believe it was the norm. Given the ethos of the school it was only in secondary school when I became inquisitive about religion and began to question it.

I believe that the induction a person under the age of 16 (age of sexual consent although I wouldn’t object to it being higher) into any religion should be considered unconstitutional given that the Catholic faith has been pressed upon me essentially since birth, and like most persons under 16 I lacked the information, knowledge, or experience to be aware of the full consequences. I wasn’t allowed vote till I was 18 but I’m allowed have my faith chosen for me after only a few months out of the womb.

I’m OK with religious education should be continued in schools provided it is an education of the history and global impact of the various religions and not a sermon. This would also be a huge step forward in the secularisation of our schools in this country.

Thoughts?

To clarify the poll options and poll results so far (as I accidentally made them private)
Yes = Yes 220 votes 64.33%
Down With This Sort Of Thing = No 65 votes 19.01%
Careful Now = Don't Care/Undecided 57 votes 16.67%

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mikeym

Blame your parents OP if you think that you were forced into a religion.

Czarcasm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

From the reply to that Policy Statement.

I was only using the AAP Policy Statement to refute Cazzoenorme's earlier assertions about the ill effects of circumcision in men -

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

I'm willing to listen to anyone who challenges my moral standards and willing to amend my outlook. On what basis can anyone justify causing such pain and risk to a child? Then there is the lifelong effect of reduced sexual pleasure due to reduced sensitivity and the pleasure caused by the foreskin.

This is of course notwithstanding the fact that no country in the world has outlawed the practice, because various Governments recognize that the case for circumcision isn't being argued on medical grounds but on religious, social and cultural grounds.

From the AAP summary.
UTI infections in boys are rare enough. It's estimated that you would need to carry out 195 circumcisions to prevent one UTI infection.

Penile cancer in the Western world is very rare. It varies from 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 330,000. And if caught early has a very high survivability rate.
To put that in perspective the mortality rate for a circumcision operation is 1 in 500,000.

There are many countries with very low circumcision rates and also very low levels of HIV infection.

From what I can see condoms and education are the most effective tool we have against the spread of STDs.

For what it's worth jack, I actually agree with all of the above, especially the last bit I highlighted there, and I've often argued as much, but I've also argued that it is not our place to impose our moral standards on someone else, let alone a whole culture. Some people who happen to share my faith (Roman Catholic) don't agree with that philosophy, but again - it's not my place to impose my moral standards on them either.

All we can do as you say is educate people who want to be educated, and show understanding and tolerance to those people who do not share our moral standards or whose moral standards differ from our own.

Jamiekelly

This tends to be very "catch-22" in terms of personal religious perspectives.
On one hand you got moderates from various religion who would do no harm to their child regarding religious teaching/moral practice.
On the other hand you have various cults (particularly in the US) who have made no arguement against marrying off cousins who are only 10 years+ old just to keep their beliefs in the strictest and most isolated of family circles.

Both are two differing circumstances that take place but could not be resolved morally by just one law, the usual legal/illegal black and white ruling.

Jamiekelly

Czarcasm wrote: »

I was only using the AAP Policy Statement to refute Cazzoenorme's earlier assertions about the ill effects of circumcision in men -

This is of course notwithstanding the fact that no country in the world has outlawed the practice, because various Governments recognize that the case for circumcision isn't being argued on medical grounds but on religious, social and cultural grounds.

For what it's worth jack, I actually agree with all of the above, especially the last bit I highlighted there, and I've often argued as much, but I've also argued that it is not our place to impose our moral standards on someone else, let alone a whole culture. Some people who happen to share my faith (Roman Catholic) don't agree with that philosophy, but again - it's not my place to impose my moral standards on them either.

All we can do as you say is educate people who want to be educated, and show understanding and tolerance to those people who do not share our moral standards or whose moral standards differ from our own.

That's very rich considering your last reply to me in a separate topic was essentially "shut up and feck off". Even when I made actual (admittedly drunk) points you simply mis-read and quoted me out of context on the more vague points. In fact when I mentioned "it doesn't matter who believes what" you weren't so "understanding and tolerant" as you claim to preach now.

Oh you're Roman Catholic? Not really...the last time I checked the church was still very much against condoms in virtually every circumstance. Quite openly telling Africans they only lead to AIDS. I'm sure Jesus would be proud. I think you tend to cherry pick just how catholic your views are.

(Not attacking religious views here, just pointing out some double standards)

Practice what you preach and all that good stuff.

Czarcasm

Jamiekelly wrote: »

That's very rich considering your last reply to me in a separate topic was essentially "shut up and feck off". Even when I made actual (admittedly drunk) points you simply mis-read and quoted me out of context on the more vague points. In fact when I mentioned "it doesn't matter who believes what" you weren't so "understanding and tolerant" as you claim to preach now.

Oh you're Roman Catholic? Not really...the last time I checked the church was still very much against condoms in virtually every circumstance. Quite openly telling Africans they only lead to AIDS. I'm sure Jesus would be proud. I think you tend to cherry pick just how catholic your views are.

(Not attacking religious views here, just pointing out some double standards)

Practice what you preach and all that good stuff.

Shut up and feck off!

Ah no, seriously Jamie, I can't even remember that exchange tbh, but given that I'd freely admit I'm a hypocrite, I'd also freely admit that there's only so much bullshìt I can be expected to be tolerant about either, and God knows, even Jesus had his limits! :pac:

Realistically though, the reason it doesn't matter who believes what is simply because it's not anyone else's place to impose their moral standards on anyone else, and I never claimed to speak for the Hierarchy of the RCC, plenty I find abhorrent about them, but I tend to concentrate my efforts closer to home in helping to improve the lives of those around me, regardless of their religious beliefs or moral standards.

If that doesn't square with your standards of what it means to be a Roman Catholic, then that's probably a good thing as it shows I'm just as human as you are, no more, no less, so I don't have any right to stand in judgement of you, and you certainly don't have any right to stand in judgement of me.

I have a suspicion you're not going to let that stop you though.

donegal.

why am not allowed to send my children to school without them being forced to spend endless hours of religion ?

FunLover18

Updated poll results

Yes 300 votes 65.22%
Down with this sort of thing 88 votes 19.13%
Careful now 72 votes 15.65%

jackofalltrades

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not saying he murdered his child, but this child died because of his family's religious beliefs. The idea that we as a society can't say 'no more' because we might offend someone's religious beliefs is a disgrace in my view.

Agreed, the freedom of people must come before the freedom of religion.

Czarcasm wrote: »

This is of course notwithstanding the fact that no country in the world has outlawed the practice, because various Governments recognize that the case for circumcision isn't being argued on medical grounds but on religious, social and cultural grounds.

A regional court in Germany ruled it unlawful, before the laws were changed.
There's also a large amount of discomfort towards the procedure in certain Nordic countries and at EU level.

Circumcision mightn't be argued for on medical grounds, but medical grounds are definitely used to defend the practice and legitimise it.
And in the case of the AAP to continue to have the practice paid for by health insurance companies. Which is a fairly large support to have.

[Deleted User]

donegal. wrote: »

why am not allowed to send my children to school without them being forced to spend endless hours of religion ?

Because there obviously isn't enough people like you who don't want their children learning religion. If there was other schools would be opening.

Most people in this country want their children taught in a catholic school with religion being part of their education along with the important aspects like communion and confirmation being part of school life.

I have said it before but the disproportionately high number of atheists that post in after hours appears to make people think that it represents the views of the country, where its exactly the opposite. There would be uproar in this country (and rightly so) if anyone even suggested taking religion out of schools.

I don't have a problem with non-denominational schools opening, but they need to be new schools for the minority who want them not changing all schools for the majority who want their children attending catholic schools.

PopePalpatine

Why should Communion and Confirmation be a part of school life? If the parents were that enthusiastic about raising their children as Catholics why aren't they taking the time out of their lives to prepare their children, rather than wasting school time doing so? Why must the State-funded schools be relied upon to provide religious instruction, rather than a Sunday school funded and run directly by the Church itself?

[Deleted User]

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why should Communion and Confirmation be a part of school life? If the parents were that enthusiastic about raising their children as Catholics why aren't they taking the time out of their lives to prepare their children, rather than wasting school time doing so? Why must the State-funded schools be relied upon to provide religious instruction, rather than a Sunday school funded and run directly by the Church itself?

Because its an important part of life for all students and is not a waste of school time by any means. Its not something that can be done on a Sunday afternoon either, its needs the time allocated in school in the run up to it.

Also they are catholic schools first and foremost so obviously important catholic events like communion and confirmation are going to be part of the school. They are also funded by a country with a very high majority of Catholics who would fully agree with all this being done in school. There is simply no chance that catholic schools will stop being religious schools, if people want non-religious schools then new ones will have to open to cater for the minority who want their children missing out on a catholic upbringing.

Amirani

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Because there obviously isn't enough people like you who don't want their children learning religion. If there was other schools would be opening.

Most people in this country want their children taught in a catholic school with religion being part of their education along with the important aspects like communion and confirmation being part of school life.

Any statistics to back up this assertion?

Because it would appear that you are quite wrong: http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/most-parents-would-choose-state-run-or-multidenominational-schools-survey-26848332.html

donegal.

nox , you put forward a valid argument but i still find myself agreeing with Pope above. I don't think one religion should be forced on all just because its the more popular.

theres alot of immigrants coming to ireland. What if through some unlikely twist one of my kids ended up in a class made up of 7 kids catholic/8 kids muslim/ 7 kids from non-religious familys or other religion. Would there be no communion or confirmation tought in those classes ? would the teacher instead dedicate the same obscene amount of time teaching about the quran?
If one of your kids was in that class would you then be happy to have to use a sunday school etc?

[Deleted User]

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Any statistics to back up this assertion?

Because it would appear that you are quite wrong: http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/most-parents-would-choose-state-run-or-multidenominational-schools-survey-26848332.html

If you want to believe that go ahead, I certainly wouldn't.

Look at the UK and how hard people fight to get their children into catholic school. I know it first hand as my aunt lives there and my cousin attends catholic school (as they are the best on top of everything). You won't be let in the front gate unless you are catholic.

donegal. wrote: »

theres alot of immigrants coming to ireland. What if through some unlikely twist one of my kids ended up in a class made up of 7 kids catholic/8 kids muslim/ 7 kids from non-religious familys or other religion. Would there be no communion or confirmation tought in those classes ? If one of your kids was in that class would you then be happy to have to use a sunday school etc?

If I had a child he/she would be in a Catholic school and therefore regardless of numbers in the class communion or confirmation should be part of school.

Amirani

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

If you want to believe that go ahead, I certainly wouldn't.

So you don't want to believe a scientific investigation into what parents actually think and want to continue to make up statistics that suit your argument?

Convenient that, but a rather terrible way of arguing, you've lost any credibility you've had previously I reckon. Most people don't want their children educated in church-run schools.

osarusan

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

If you want to believe that go ahead, I certainly wouldn't.

What evidence do you offer instead of it?

FunLover18

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

If you want to believe that go ahead, I certainly wouldn't.

You don't believe it's a fair representation or you don't believe the results?

donegal.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Any statistics to back up this assertion?

Because it would appear that you are quite wrong: http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/most-parents-would-choose-state-run-or-multidenominational-schools-survey-26848332.html

mostly about who should run the school.
heres the bit most relevent to this debate:

While most would not have their children educated by the church, 67pc said they would still want their child to receive religious instruction during the school day.

They would also like their children to get help with preparation for the sacraments, such as first confession, first communion and confirmation.

Some 31pc of parents would rather their children receive religious education outside of school.

Of that figure, the majority (60pc) said the responsibility to educate their children on religion should fall to the parents, 26pc believed it should be the clergy's responsibility and 13pc teachers'.

Knasher

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Its not something that can be done on a Sunday afternoon either, its needs the time allocated in school in the run up to it.

The fact that other countries manage to have a secular education system with catholic children in attendance, would seem to contradict that.

[Deleted User]

FunLover18 wrote: »

You don't believe it's a fair representation or you don't believe the results?

Well for a start its being worded to make it sound different to what it is.

Almost 70 of people surveyed want their children to be taught religion, have their communion etc.

The 24% voting for educate together are the only ones I would count as being against religion.

donegal.

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

If I had a child he/she would be in a Catholic school and therefore regardless of numbers in the class communion or confirmation should be part of school.

Thats exactly my point.
I CAN'T send my children to a school that doesn't teach communion or confirmation. (my kids don't go to a Catholic school either)

The stats in the indo link would suggest that at least 1 in 3 schools would not teach communion or confirmation , but thats not the case in my area. The closest option to me would mean a 4 hour commute with no public transport.

Amirani

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Well for a start its being worded to make it sound different to what it is.

Almost 70 of people surveyed want their children to be taught religion, have their communion etc.

The 24% voting for educate together are the only ones I would count as being against religion.

You seem unable to interpret properly, I'll try to assist you.

73% of parents would rather their children go to a non-church run school.

So your original point of...

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Most people in this country want their children taught in a catholic school

...is completely wrong and made up purely to suit your argument.

The statistic you cherry-picked from the survey of 70% of people wanting religion thought does not equal support for religious run schools. Funnily enough it does equal support of the teaching of religion, exactly what the it say beside the figure.

Red Pepper

The bottom line is if you take religion out of school, footfall (and revenue) in Roman Catholic churches will fall off a cliff even more than they did since the child abuse scandal. Once parents are not forced to push their children through the sacraments via the education system, many of those parents will opt out completely.

It's always about money...and power.

jobeenfitz

Links234 wrote: »

I'm going to say no, and say that it should be the right of the parents to raise their children within whatever moral or religious framework they want (within reason). I don't necesseraly think it's right to indoctrinate children into a religion, but I don't think it's right to make it illegal or otherwise ban it.

I'm an atheist and repeatedly been called a liberal fascist, but come on... That's a bit much.

Who decides whats "within reason"?

[Deleted User]

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The statistic you cherry-picked from the survey of 70% of people wanting religion thought does not equal support for religious run schools. Funnily enough it does equal support of the teaching of religion, exactly what the it say beside the figure.

Red Pepper wrote: »

The bottom line is if you take religion out of school, footfall (and revenue) in Roman Catholic churches will fall off a cliff even more than they did since the child abuse scandal. Once parents are not forced to push their children through the sacraments via the education system, many of those parents will opt out completely.

It's always about money...and power.

Why do so many Catholics in the UK (a large number who are Irish or of Irish decent) work so hard then to get their children into Catholic schools, why would the opinions be so different.

I don't fully believe them surveys give a proper representation anyway, regardless of its findings.

Red Pepper

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Why do so many Catholics in the UK (a large number who are Irish or of Irish decent) work so hard then to get their children into Catholic schools, why would the opinions be so different.

I don't fully believe them surveys give a proper representation anyway, regardless of its findings.

Why do Catholics in the UK work hard then to get their children into Catholic schools? I don't really get your question. Why would they work so hard to get them into other religion schools?
Is it because they are good schools? Is it because they are close by?
You tell me bud.

Red Pepper

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Why do so many Catholics in the UK (a large number who are Irish or of Irish decent) work so hard then to get their children into Catholic schools, why would the opinions be so different.

Stop the press, I got it!

They are hoping their children prosper both in this life and the next where they will share in the rewards of ever lasting peace and harmony with God and all his angels and saints!

Correct?

on the river

Red Pepper wrote: »

The bottom line is if you take religion out of school, footfall (and revenue) in Roman Catholic churches will fall off a cliff even more than they did since the child abuse scandal. Once parents are not forced to push their children through the sacraments via the education system, many of those parents will opt out completely.

It's always about money...and power.

ITS about freedom of living not just about money and power .

Parents have a right to send their children to any educational institute they wish.

Knasher

Emersyn Fierce Year wrote: »

Why do so many Catholics in the UK (a large number who are Irish or of Irish decent) work so hard then to get their children into Catholic schools, why would the opinions be so different.

Not just catholic schools, but faith based schools in general. The reason though is probably because these schools usually do better academically than their state run counterparts. The question then would be, do you subscribe this to a belief in a higher power, or the fact that state schools are required to take any student but private schools are allowed to discriminate on the financial ability of their parents (fee paying), which has a long established correlation with academic performance, as well as being able to have a much stricter policy on trouble makers (again a strong correlate with academic performance), and the resulting better reputation which forms a self selecting bias towards the parents who are willing to put in the effort to get their kids into these schools also being more likely to take a hands on approach to their kids education once they're actually in school, leading to even a greater effect. Personally I'd regard the second explanation as more plausible, so I'd ascribe their popularity as an endorsement of private schooling over faith based schooling. Do you disagree?

Red Pepper

on the river wrote: »

ITS about freedom of living not just about money and power .

It's about power and money to the Roman organisation.