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

What to tell kids when they ask?

Kenny Bania

Hi all,

I have a kid in her first year in a catholic primary school. She has been opted out of religion class amicably with the teacher & principal - no issues. She does not do the religion book - she does a colouring book instead. So all agreeable there.

However, she is obviously picking up some things through osmosis. I'm not worried about her being indoctrinated, as it's simply not a part of her life or her world outside of overhearing a few things in school - but when she makes (what she considers) throwaway comments to me like "god made all of us" - what exactly should I respond with?
I don't want to get technical, and say we're all star dust, etc - but I do want to correct her as much as appropriate. At the same time, I don't want her shouting out in class that "my daddy says there is no god", etc.

Suggestions? It's a delicate balance. I want to correct any misconceptions she may pick up, but also don't want her correcting other people in the classroom environment.

Thanks in advance.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Interesting angle but not sure about that comparison...

For starters, environment and upbringing will have a significant impact on your religious beliefs or lack of. It will have no impact on your sexual preference.

As to whether it's a choice or not is an interesting point...

If i'm a child of an atheist, who identifies as atheist, am I atheist by choice ?

Of course environment and upbringing will have an effect on a person's expression of their sexuality. It was far more common for a gay person to hide or deny their sexuality when their upbringing did not approve of it. Society behaved as though it was a 'preference' and many homosexual people went along with this idea. We haven't suddenly got more gay people, they were there all along but denying to themselves and everyone else that they were gay.

If you are a child of a religious family who identifies as religious, does that mean that you genuinely believe in god, or do you just go along with the outward show that you have been taught is 'proper'. And what you want everyone else to do is to justify your propriety by acting in the same way as you.

I was a child of Christian parents who identified as (Protestant) Christian until I was about 22 or so, and I went along with (Catholic) social practices for another 20 years or so, but I was aware from my mid teens that it was all totally hollow. I did not believe, and actually stepped down from being a Sunday School teacher as I realised I did not believe what I was teaching. I could pretend that I was religious, but I am not, it is not a choice.

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

It's all about choices Mr Pudding. You have choices. Take them or leave them I don't care. i'm only concerned with my own choices and the sacrifices needed to make them happen. What you do is totally up to you.

And with respect, discrimination in enrolment policies is a a separate topic and I'm not going to get into it here.

I do have sympathy with all sides of that discussion and as i've already said it, it will need to be tackled and some kind of compromise found but any solutions will cost money and I don't see anyone clambering to cough up for the time being.

So, is that you can't answer the questions I asked you or you won't?

MrP

looksee

Swanner, I am also very interested to know about the financial support that the church gives to schools, and the financial support that parents give, solely on the basis of that school's religious ethos, rather than concern for their children.

The Bishop Basher

Thanks Shrap and looksee...

Interesting to get other perspectives....

I was also raised Christian but was never comfortable with it. I thought I was atheist for a long time but was never comfortable with that either. Then I was humanist. In the end I ran out of labels for myself and started to just accept my beliefs for what they are but they definitely changed over time as I searched out answers and educated myself.

I'm not sure I would be so quick to say I had no choice in these matters. It took a great deal of personal effort on my part to figure it all out and i'll never be finished. That in itself is a choice and has had a direct impact on my beliefs.

There's also the problem of deathbed conversions and there are many. If these people had no choice in their atheism how come they can change their minds in the final days of life ?

So for the sake of debate, if that child is raised as an atheist by an atheist family and as with the OP has been excluded from ALL religious education or activity, are they still an atheist by design ?

If they haven't been exposed to anything other then atheism then all we've done is remove all other choices to ensure they remain atheist.

Who's to say that child wouldn't have been a christian had they been exposed to those teachings...

I'm not claiming to have any answers to these questions but it's an interesting topic..

looksee

Swanner, are your statistics for deathbed conversions from the same source as the information about Catholic funding of schools?

As to the rest.

If a child is raised as an atheist with no other information in his experience, he will most likely be atheist.

If a child is raised as religious he may remain religious, but actual evidence of church attendance, entry to the priesthood etc is demonstrating that this is less and less likely.

So on balance there is a tendency towards atheism. Children have to be taught to be religious, (specifically Catholic, in Ireland,) so it is fairly evident that there would be a great anxiety that schools remain the source of indoctrination for the church.

kylith

Swanner wrote: »

So what would you like the Government to do ?

If you live in an area that is unviable for a school of your preference you have a few options.

1. Move
2. Get enough people to move there to make it viable.
3. Any of the options I mentioned above

The government cold fix it with one sentence. "Religious classes and sacremental preparation will now take place outside of school hours". Then no-one is discriminated against on enrolment. Or maybe, since you're keen on parents taken responsibility for their choices if someone chooses to have a child and chooses to raise it in a religion they should take responsibility for their religious instruction.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

Swanner, are your statistics for deathbed conversions from the same source as the information about Catholic funding of schools?

All I meant was that if a religious community get together, set up a school to serve their community, fund that school to a significant degree through contributions and fundraising, then that religious community should have a very significant say in who attends the school, and under what ethos the school is run.

That was all and i've said twice already i'm not going down this rat hole.

It's worthy of it's own thread...

WRT to deathbed conversions, I appreciate it's anecdotal but I know they happen because my father witnessed them quite regularly. Like religious beliefs they would be to varying degrees but they happened and they weren't uncommon. So it would be unrealistic to assume that his professional experience was in any way untypical or unusual.

The actual stats we don't have as you know so we can't put a number on it but unless your saying they never happen then it's kind of moot anyway as the original point would stand regardless of the number.

looksee wrote: »

If a child is raised as an atheist with no other information in his experience, he will most likely be atheist.

If a child is raised as religious he may remain religious, but actual evidence of church attendance, entry to the priesthood etc is demonstrating that this is less and less likely.

So is that how we measure it ? Entrants to the priesthood ? Church attendance ? Are any of these reliable measures for you to determine whether others hold a religious belief or not ?

I think you've oversimplified it by a long margin and made a series of dodgy assumptions based on your own views.

looksee wrote: »

So on balance there is a tendency towards atheism. Children have to be taught to be religious, (specifically Catholic, in Ireland,) so it is fairly evident that there would be a great anxiety that schools remain the source of indoctrination for the church.

Again, I think your projecting your views on these children. Studies have shown that children have a propensity to believe in a something other. It's wired into us from an early age. I've seen it with one of my own. She demonstrated a belief from a very early age despite being born into a non religious household. People have believed in something other since the dawn of civilisation. Atheists aren't new. They've always existed. If it was as you suggest, the whole world should be atheist by now.

The Bishop Basher

MrPudding wrote: »

So, is that you can't answer the questions I asked you or you won't?

MrP

Won't.

I didn't reply because it was a bit of a ramble and as I said a few times now, i'm not getting into the discrimination debate.

If you have questions aside from that and you put them succinctly, minus the personal remarks, i'd be happy to answer.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

The government cold fix it with one sentence. "Religious classes and sacremental preparation will now take place outside of school hours". Then no-one is discriminated against on enrolment.

They can't do that kylith, as faith formation is part of the curriculum in schools which are under religious patronage. Religion classes and sacramental preparation must take place within school hours.

Or maybe, since you're keen on parents taken responsibility for their choices if someone chooses to have a child and chooses to raise it in a religion they should take responsibility for their religious instruction.

Parents already do that though by enrolling their children in schools which share their religious ethos. I take responsibility for my child's religious instruction both in, and outside school hours. I had no interest in sending my child to an ET school that's actually a lot closer than the RC school he attends now. I don't just take responsibility for my child's religious instruction, but also his education.

I can see why people here object to religious indoctrination in schools for their children, but whenever I read suggestions that question my parenting because I choose to send my child to a school with a religious ethos, well, I bite my lip for the most part. I understand where they're coming from, but they have one idea of what they call a community, I have another. That's all it is.

I'm all for Government introducing secular education, but it must be exactly that - no interference with schools with a religious ethos, and setting up more schools with no religious ethos.

Samaris

People are, I would assume, naturally agnostic. Raised without a faith, and without a lack of it either, it would just be totally irrelevant. But if they felt the need for something more, were searching for something, they'd find faith, or find they don't have it, and become religious or atheist (or just stay uninterested in the whole thing) as they grow up.

Children shouldn't be indoctrinated either way, faith should be a personal thing.

TheQuietFella

Samaris wrote: »

Children shouldn't be indoctrinated either way, faith should be a personal thing.

What form of indoctrination takes place at schools?

I was in school for the best part of 14 years and never experienced any form

of indoctrination! Between all the subjects being taught in and outside of

schools you would wonder where they would get the time for it!

frostyjacks

Samaris wrote: »

People are, I would assume, naturally agnostic. Raised without a faith, and without a lack of it either, it would just be totally irrelevant. But if they felt the need for something more, were searching for something, they'd find faith, or find they don't have it, and become religious or atheist (or just stay uninterested in the whole thing) as they grow up.

Children shouldn't be indoctrinated either way, faith should be a personal thing.

Faith already is a personal thing. It's also communal, part of the reason parents send their children to faith schools. I'd hate to live in a society where everyone has to keep their beliefs and opinions locked away, lest someone might be offended.

Back to the OP, the child in question isn't participating in religious education class. She's picking up faith off her own bat. Humans are naturally curious about where we came from, who shaped the world we live in. All roads lead to Rome.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Faith already is a personal thing. It's also communal, part of the reason parents send their children to faith schools. I'd hate to live in a society where everyone has to keep their beliefs and opinions locked away, lest someone might be offended.

Back to the OP, the child in question isn't participating in religious education class. She's picking up faith off her own bat. Humans are naturally curious about where we came from, who shaped the world we live in. All roads lead to Rome.

That's only cause she's hearing one side of the story. If all faiths were taught equally she might find herself on the road to something else entirely.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

That's only cause she's hearing one side of the story. If all faiths were taught equally she might find herself on the road to something else entirely.

Well, she's living in a Christian country, steeped in a proud culture and tradition. It's to be expected a little of that sparkle will rub off on people.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, she's living in a Christian country, steeped in a proud culture and tradition. It's to be expected a little of that sparkle will rub off on people.

Not unless you want it to. My six year old thinks Jesus is a swear word and knows nothing about religion or faith. He's not exposed to it. Little kids don't need to be.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The use of this phrase always makes me laugh more than it should, especially when it's coming from someone I assume is well-educated, middle-class and white.

Is that not a racist assumption though? Do you assume a black person or a "lower" class person couldn't write such eloquent prose?

Swanner wrote: »

No but my parents chose to relocate to an area that had a good CoI national school. It was a priority for them.

I thought you said your father was the CoI vicar. His child was guaranteed a first priority place in the local parish school, no matter where he went. Even if the school had been oversubscribed, some unfortunate local of "mixed marriage" or perhaps atheist pedigree, or somehow lacking in full CoI credentials, would have been bumped off the list to make way for you to get a place.

Swanner wrote: »

Ah I see. You're one of these people that identifies a problem and then sits and moans about said problem wishing it would resolve itself. Doesn't happen. Especially with Governments. You want to fix things go do it. Start lobbying, start getting groups together, off the top of my head you could set up a resource to help guide people who want to build a secular school in their area. Lots of opportunity, lots of challenges and lots of rewards should you chose that path.

The other option as you know, is to continue to sit and whine that the government won't listen to you and refuses to build a school that caters for you and your childs beliefs. Good luck with that. You'll be still disappointed and whining 20 years from now.

That's a bit rich coming from you. You previously argued that when the govt. built a brand new secondary school in Greystones recently, it was perfectly fine for the CoI to gain control of it, give themselves priority admission, and use it as a vehicle to proselytize to a community in which they are only a minority.
Your experience is not in building new schools or fundraising for them. Your experience is of hijacking them from the public purse. Converting a public facility so that it serves the interest of your private interest group.
And no amount of "whatabout the catholics, shur they have even more schools" can cover that up.
Now I realise you are not the worst, in that you seem at least capable of seeing the injustice of it, but your whataboutery is only a fig leaf of an excuse. You use it while you make a grab at the greasy till yourself.

You play the martyr, but as Hotblack pointed out, in reality you have enjoyed privilege.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can't do that kylith, as faith formation is part of the curriculum in schools which are under religious patronage. Religion classes and sacramental preparation must take place within school hours.

The curriculum is not set in stone and can be changed.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Parents already do that though by enrolling their children in schools which share their religious ethos.

I disagree. Putting your child in a Catholic school and leaving it at that is not taking responsibility for their religious education, it is abdicating responsibility to the school. You take a hand in your child's religious upbringing and good for you. The majority of people do not, attending mass only for their child's baptism, communion and confirmation. Maaaaaybe Christmas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm all for Government introducing secular education, but it must be exactly that - no interference with schools with a religious ethos, and setting up more schools with no religious ethos.

I would agree if schools with a religious ethos were not funded by the state, but currently they are. The state builds the schools, the state funds the schools, the state pays the wages. Ergo, the state gets a say. If the RCC, the CoI, the Muslims, and the rest want to build the schools and pay the bills themselves then they can teach as much religion as they want.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

Not unless you want it to. My six year old thinks Jesus is a swear word and knows nothing about religion or faith. He's not exposed to it. Little kids don't need to be.

So he didn't celebrate Christmas then?

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Is that not a racist assumption though? Do you assume a black person or a "lower" class person couldn't write such eloquent prose?

I don't think it's a racist assumption at all, given that a high proportion of people who identify as atheist in Western society are indeed well educated, middle-class, and indeed white. It wasn't particularly the prose I was referring to, but the sentiment expressed.

Although there are people who identify as atheist who are black, they aren't generally well educated or middle class.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

I thought you said your father was the CoI vicar. His child was guaranteed a first priority place in the local parish school, no matter where he went. Even if the school had been oversubscribed, some unfortunate local of "mixed marriage" or perhaps atheist pedigree, or somehow lacking in full CoI credentials, would have been bumped off the list to make way for you to get a place..

I said they moved to be near a good CoI national school. It was important to them. I never suggested anything about places.

recedite wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from you. You previously argued that when the govt. built a brand new secondary school in Greystones recently, it was perfectly fine for the CoI to gain control of it, give themselves priority admission, and use it as a vehicle to proselytize to a community in which they are only a minority.
Your experience is not in building new schools or fundraising for them. Your experience is of hijacking them from the public purse. Converting a public facility so that it serves the interest of your private interest group.
And no amount of "whatabout the catholics, shur they have even more schools" can cover that up.
Now I realise you are not the worst, in that you seem at least capable of seeing the injustice of it, but your whataboutery is only a fig leaf of an excuse. You use it while you make a grab at the greasy till yourself.

You play the martyr, but as Hotblack pointed out, in reality you have enjoyed privilege.

Jesus what is it with this privilege ? I wish someone had told me at the time. Travelling 4 hours a day on public transport sure didn't feel like a privilege. All my catholic mates, and some protestant ones got to walk to and from school together. They had a better quality of life and a much shorter day. Surely if anyone was privileged they were. Not that I ever though about it that way.

Look recedite you're clearly very angry about this and I understand why. I was gobsmacked when the admissions policy for TC was released and I'm still gobsmacked by it today. I think there have been major mistakes made not just in relation to admission for those of other faiths and none but for CoI admission too and I've said so many times.

But my position is not as simple as you're making it out to be. I have huge sympathy with your point of view.

I just see it from all the other sides too.

TheQuietFella

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I have a kid in her first year in a catholic primary school. She has been opted out of religion class

Just reading again your first post and you have some serious issues that

need to be addressed. You made the decision to reduce her education and

for her to learn something a little different! You're a sad excuse!

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

I said they moved to be near a good CoI national school. It was important to them. I never suggested anything about places.

You didn't mention it because the idea of getting a place in the primary school was never even an issue for your parents. That in itself is a privilege.

If you grew up in Greystones, there were 2 CoI primary schools around, and I think 4 or 5 RC primary schools. So a choice of two different types of religious indoctrination, for everyone. Your family were privileged that one of these suited them.

There was only one secondary school, of RC ethos. At this point your luck ran out. Instead of attending the RC school you travelled for many hours every day to escape the indoctrination. You have my sympathy.

Nowadays there are two secondary schools. One CoI and one RC. So now your tribe has privileges in both primary and secondary education. Hooray.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

You didn't mention it because the idea of getting a place in the primary school was never even an issue for your parents. That in itself is a privilege.

If you grew up in Greystones, there were 2 CoI primary schools around, and I think 4 or 5 RC primary schools. So a choice of two different types of religious indoctrination, for everyone. Your family were privileged that one of these suited them.

There was only one secondary school, of RC ethos. At this point your luck ran out. Instead of attending the RC school you travelled for many hours every day to escape the indoctrination. You have my sympathy.

Nowadays there are two secondary schools. One CoI and one RC. So now your tribe has privileges in both primary and secondary education. Hooray.

Yes I remember someone telling me that a bunch of derogatory posts about me were removed form that thread at the time rattling on and on about privilege. I wonder who that might have been ??

Your so blinkered by your anger that you can't even see that I'm not arguing with you. Your arguments are all valid, you just make them in such an angry way that the message gets lost.

I believe everyone should have a right to an education in their chosen faith or none. The reality of delivering that is not so easy but things are changing slowly. And I hope some day all "tribes" as you call them achieve equal access across both levels of education. But we'll get there by working together. Your finger wagging and blame game does nothing to achieve solutions.

Just a point to note btw, it's not my tribe. I don't belong to any tribes and haven't since I was a young lad. Nor have I any link whatsoever to the school you mention. So have all the goes you like but I'm not your enemy here.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

So he didn't celebrate Christmas then?

Course we did.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

because the person who uses it to my face has no idea about me and cannot see their own "privileges".

A post in response to someone else is "to your face" ? It was nothing to do with you at all.

The privilege in question is the favouritism shown towards CoI schools by the state ever since its foundation. I wouldn't begrudge that if other minorities got the same. But what is really and urgently needed is a state education system inclusive of all. Segregating kids from junior infants onwards on the basis of gender and religion is just not on in the 21st century. It is damaging to children and damaging to communities and damaging to inclusion of minorities and immigrants (and even migrants within Ireland - ETs enrolment policies discriminate against them.)

Swanner wrote: »

So what would you like the Government to do ?

Step 1 - as I already said, end discrimination in schools it funds.

Step 2 - and this is where the real pain lies - force through divestment everywhere there is more than 1 Catholic school in an area. Abolish single-sex schools where necessary to facilitate this.

Now for the next bit - please remember we've had these 'solutions' put forward dozens of times before and repetition doesn't improve them.

If you live in an area that is unviable for a school of your preference you have a few options.

1. Move

Negative equity, tracker mortgage, elderly parents nearby

2. Get enough people to move there to make it viable.

How does anyone "get" people to move anywhere? Nonsense. Why should they uproot themselves any more than I should?

3. Any of the options I mentioned above

In other words, no one is going to come and sort it for you.

Step 1 - ban discrimination in itself would go a long way towards making our system fairer.

Best of luck with it. I don't have an issue with removing discrimination in enrolment as long as the Government or somebody else takes over the funding currently provided by the church, the parents and the wider community.

Churches do not provide any funding. Commonly held myth. Parents of ET kids are in the same position currently with regard to fundraising etc. as parents anywhere else.

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

I believe everyone should have a right to an education in their chosen faith or none. The reality of delivering that is not so easy..

Being educated through the ethos of your personal religion is not a right, it is a privilege. As such, it should be reserved for those who can pay for that privilege. Publicly funded schools on the other hand should be for all members of the public.

If you stop for a second to think about how many versions of religion, non-religion, spirituality etc are out there, then it is obvious that the state can never fund a separate school for each and every one. All it can do is privilege one or two sections of society.
If it funds schools for the two largest majorities, it fails the rest of society.
That breeds resentment and anger.
If it funds religiously neutral schools (ie secular) it caters for everyone.

You asked questions on this thread about what people meant by privilege, but you didn't like the honest answers. I don't think any of my posts were ever deleted from that other thread. I'm not angry with you personally; I wish you well. When I see how that fantastic new school, which my taxes helped to pay for, was hijacked by a private interest group it does make me angry. To me, its the same as seeing a county councillor divert public money into his own pocket.

eviltwin

Swanner wrote: »

Yes I remember someone telling me that a bunch of derogatory posts about me were removed form that thread at the time rattling on and on about privilege. I wonder who that might have been ??

Your so blinkered by your anger that you can't even see that I'm not arguing with you. Your arguments are all valid, you just make them in such an angry way that the message gets lost.

I believe everyone should have a right to an education in their chosen faith or none. The reality of delivering that is not so easy but things are changing slowly. And I hope some day all "tribes" as you call them achieve equal access across both levels of education. But we'll get there by working together. Your finger wagging and blame game does nothing to achieve solutions.

Just a point to note btw, it's not my tribe. I don't belong to any tribes and haven't since I was a young lad. Nor have I any link whatsoever to the school you mention. So have all the goes you like but I'm not your enemy here.

Can the church's not do that? It seems to work well for kids going to educate together schools

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A post in response to someone else is "to your face" ? It was nothing to do with you at all.

I was referring to the expression and my experience of people offline who in my experience tend to use that expression. I was giving an explanation why I find it an utterly meaningless expression is all.

The privilege in question is the favouritism shown towards CoI schools by the state ever since its foundation. I wouldn't begrudge that if other minorities got the same. But what is really and urgently needed is a state education system inclusive of all. Segregating kids from junior infants onwards on the basis of gender and religion is just not on in the 21st century. It is damaging to children and damaging to communities and damaging to inclusion of minorities and immigrants (and even migrants within Ireland - ETs enrolment policies discriminate against them.)

I don't agree with that at all. I think it's very much dependent upon context. By that standard, people who withdraw their children from religion classes practicing self-segregation are "damaging" their children. I don't think parents would agree with that assessment of their actions.

Secondly - what community are you referring to exactly? Physical proximity to a school, or religious communities?

Thirdly - there are many different immigrant communities which have no interest in integrating with other communities and would rather stick to their own people within their own culture and so on that would rather send their children to schools which respect their culture and way of life.

You can have your own ideas on what "isn't on" in the 21st century, and what is "damaging" to children and all the rest of it, but you'll likely come up against resistance if you fail to acknowledge the needs and culture of parents who don't share your utopian idealism because they have their own ideas about what is best for their children.

Providing secular State schools in areas that there is a demand for them is the best the Government can do.

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

Won't.

I didn't reply because it was a bit of a ramble and as I said a few times now, i'm not getting into the discrimination debate.

If you have questions aside from that and you put them succinctly, minus the personal remarks, i'd be happy to answer.

Ok. So can you provide details on the funding the church, the community and the parent provide for school?

MrP

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

Being educated through the ethos of your personal religion is not a right, it is a privilege. As such, it should be reserved for those who can pay for that privilege. Publicly funded schools on the other hand should be for all members of the public.

If you stop for a second to think about how many versions of religion, non-religion, spirituality etc are out there, then it is obvious that the state can never fund a separate school for each and every one. All it can do is privilege one or two sections of society.
If it funds schools for the two largest majorities, it fails the rest of society.
That breeds resentment and anger.
If it funds religiously neutral schools (ie secular) it caters for everyone.

You asked questions on this thread about what people meant by privilege, but you didn't like the honest answers. I don't think any of my posts were ever deleted from that other thread. I'm not angry with you personally; I wish you well. When I see how that fantastic new school, which my taxes helped to pay for, was hijacked by a private interest group it does make me angry. To me, its the same as seeing a county councillor divert public money into his own pocket.

Ok so we fundamentally disagree on what an education utopia would look like.

I believe that everyone in theory should have access to education delivered through the ethos of their faith should they choose that.

I also believe people should have access to secular schools should that be their choice.

But we also have to be realistic and that means accepting that this isn't possible for all.

At that point, for me, It comes down to
making choices as a parent. If it's important enough to you, you'll find a way.

You also seem to forget that minorities pay their taxes too. As do atheists and majority religions.

So do you think it's fair that under your proposal, atheists would be entitled to a free state secular education while all other beliefs must either suck it up or pay up while contributing to that secular state school through their taxes ? Priviledge indeed..

Surely that's exactly the kind of system you have such a problem with right now or is it ok when atheist get to call it ?