What to tell kids when they ask?

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.

You're wrong there.

This is the full text of Article 42 of the Constitution of Ireland:

"42: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

42.2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."

Bold emphasis my own. These are fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution, not "privileges" as you might like to call them.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're wrong there.

Bold emphasis my own. These are fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution, not "privileges" as you might like to call them.

Not to rain on the constitution but that little nugget comes from the same place that time that keeps references to women in the home there.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

It gets some people's backs up, yes, and it's an expression I never normally use, but entirely appropriate in this case.

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.

I dunno. It's not an easy decision to make to have to mark out your child as different to all the others. In the case of our two we haven't yet done that. We bloody well will before bible studies start in 5th class though. Most of the Hindu, Muslim etc. kids go along for the weekly church visit (not really a service). It's not the same as sacraments or class masses in an RC school.

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

Community is all the people who live in an area - no-one should feel excluded from this.

A religious community is a group of people who choose to meet and worship - which is perfectly fine - where we went wrong in Ireland was assuming that this type of community is the same thing as "the" community and anyone who is non-RC or whatever is excluded.

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.

Yes. And I believe the state should oppose such self-segregation as it is extremely detrimental to society as a whole.

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.

There was a time when any injustice which has been eradicated was seen as a utopian dream.

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

So again we're back to having to travel or move to access a non-discriminatory school? Can you not see how that is wrong?
Why do the rights of religious (or, in Ireland, more likely nominally religious) parents get to trump everyone else? Why do they get what they want on their doorstep and everyone else has to like it or lump it? For state services we all pay for? It's simply indefensible.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So again we're back to having to travel or move to access a non-discriminatory school? Can you not see how that is wrong?

Of course I can see how it's wrong, and it's unfair on some parents and all the rest of it, I'm not going to be obtuse about it. I do see how it's unfair on parents and children who would likely have to travel great distances for their children to have access to education congruent with their values.

I think this is a difficulty that won't be resolved easily as the State does not have a bottomless pit of money, and so it has to look at the census figures and make projections based on that. That inevitably means that some parents are going to lose out.

Why do the rights of religious (or, in Ireland, more likely nominally religious) parents get to trump everyone else?

Because they are in the majority? I don't think tbh the idea is to "trump" minorities. The State is only obliged to take reasonable steps to provide for the education of minorities, and logistics will play a part in that. There's no point in providing a non-denom school in an area where there may likely be only three students attending in 10 years, and then no students after that. It would just make no sense, a complete waste of money and other resources.

Why do they get what they want on their doorstep and everyone else has to like it or lump it? For state services we all pay for? It's simply indefensible.

We all pay for State services, but the State outsources provision of those services through the patronage system, and the fact is that because the vast majority of people in this country identify as RC, they're going to get the largest share of funding.

It's easily defensible as parents choose to send their children to religious ethos schools, and the State has to provide funds for the education of those children in that school.

The "I pay my tax" argument doesn't really wash tbh, we all pay taxes, including people who aren't parents, who are paying taxes to educate other people's children. They gain nothing from State provisioned services. Would you agree that it is unfair on those people to have to pay taxes to educate other peoples children?

I would, but I understand that is how a society functions. It isn't always going to be fair, and there will always be someone will feel they are being hard done by.

Swanner wrote: »

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.

Agreed. Would you not agree that given that it is not feasible for the state to provide individual schools for every minority religion that a secular education system, with various faiths providing faith formation via Sunday schools (for example), is the most efficient use of public funds?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So again we're back to having to travel or move to access a non-discriminatory school? Can you not see how that is wrong?
Why do the rights of religious (or, in Ireland, more likely nominally religious) parents get to trump everyone else? Why do they get what they want on their doorstep and everyone else has to like it or lump it? For state services we all pay for? It's simply indefensible.

Because they are the majority and they command the corridors that matter. The Church still has considerable influence and is a force to be reckoned with at election time. We are a long long way from being a secular state.

kylith wrote: »

Agreed. Would you not agree that given that it is not feasible for the state to provide individual schools for every minority religion that a secular education system, with various faiths providing faith formation via Sunday schools (for example), is the most efficient use of public funds?

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

otpmb

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools.

Why? Would Sunday schools not be as good as say a CoI school at providing complete faith formation for children?

eviltwin

Swanner wrote: »

Because they are the majority and they command the corridors that matter. The Church still has considerable influence and is a force to be reckoned with at election time. We are a long long way from being a secular state.

All the more reason to loosen their strings. It's not like they speak for anything other than a minority of Catholics anyway.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

This is not about atheists, or not just atheists. If you add together all the people who are non-Catholics, non-believers, or who would prefer a secular state (regardless of their religious beliefs, and there are Catholics who would like a secular state) you have a considerable number. Add in all those people who really don't give a damn about religion in schools, or who are thinking backwards - schools are religious therefore we pretend to be to get our children into them - and you have a whole lot more.

A secular school is not an anti-religious school, it is not an atheist school, it is simply a place where children can learn academic subjects, practical skills, and moral values but without the overlay of one religion's dogma. It is nothing to be afraid of.

Further, children would have the opportunity to learn their own religious practices in the heart of their family, rather than the classroom, parents would have the right to guide their children in their faith.

Isn't it very odd that the Catholic Church denounced the state health scheme that was proposed by Noel Browne to give children a better chance of life, on the basis that it took responsibility for children away from the family. Well here you have the opportunity to put responsibility for children's religious education back in the control of parents.

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

But surely churches would supply the faith formation Sunday schools free of charge? That way everyone gets the same, free, schooling and gets their religion supplied by their church of choice. No segregation, children of all faiths play together, all religions are taught about in schools, and the actual 'our god is best' is taken care of separately. What's not to like?

As it stands non Catholic, for example, kids just get given colouring to do, which does them no good, and they are still exposed to Catholicism due to being in the classroom while RE is taking place.

kylith wrote: »

But surely churches would supply the faith formation Sunday schools free of charge? That way everyone gets the same, free, schooling and gets their religion supplied by their church of choice. No segregation, children of all faiths play together, all religions are taught about in schools, and the actual 'our god is best' is taken care of separately. What's not to like?

As it stands non Catholic, for example, kids just get given colouring to do, which does them no good, and they are still exposed to Catholicism due to being in the classroom while RE is taking place.

The problem with the above suggestion is quite simple - the vast majority of parents simply don't want it.

They're quite content with the status quo. I've even met with one parent who told me straight out they're not religious themselves, but they want their child to make their confirmation. I've met other parents who nearly caused war one year because they felt their children weren't properly prepared for confirmation. They want the religious ethos to remain in the school.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think this is a difficulty that won't be resolved easily as the State does not have a bottomless pit of money, and so it has to look at the census figures and make projections based on that. That inevitably means that some parents are going to lose out.

There is no need whatsoever to set up any additional schools or spend any more money to solve this problem.

Because they are in the majority? I don't think tbh the idea is to "trump" minorities. The State is only obliged to take reasonable steps to provide for the education of minorities, and logistics will play a part in that. There's no point in providing a non-denom school in an area where there may likely be only three students attending in 10 years, and then no students after that. It would just make no sense, a complete waste of money and other resources.

Excuse me, but the state is obliged to provide for primary education for every child. They currently don't do this on an equal basis, as schools the state funds are permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Sure, every child finds a place somewhere, eventually but it's the children of non-catholics who are routinely inconvenienced - at best.
If you've been reading and understanding my posts you'd know that the last thing I want is a non-denom school set up for a handful of pupils. I don't want kids to be segregated on the basis of religion or non-religion at all.

We all pay for State services, but the State outsources provision of those services through the patronage system,

Exactly, it abdicates responsibility for delivery of the services it (or rather we) pays for. It has effectively gifted state funds and lands over to unaccountable, unelected religious bodies to use for their own benefit.

and the fact is that because the vast majority of people in this country identify as RC, they're going to get the largest share of funding.

It's not about shares of funding. It's about a system that provides for everyone and excludes no-one.

It's easily defensible as parents choose to send their children to religious ethos schools, and the State has to provide funds for the education of those children in that school.

No it's not. It's not a 'choice' when parents enrol their kids in the default option, or perhaps the only option. It's a historical legacy and one which is discriminatory and damaging.

The "I pay my tax" argument doesn't really wash tbh, we all pay taxes, including people who aren't parents, who are paying taxes to educate other people's children. They gain nothing from State provisioned services. Would you agree that it is unfair on those people to have to pay taxes to educate other peoples children?

That's like saying I'm not sick, why am I paying for hospitals.
Society as a whole benefits from having children educated to a good standard.
Society does not benefit however from pandering to religions' desires to segregate children on sectarian grounds and indoctrinate them at taxpayers' expense and discriminate against everyone not in the 'big 2' religions.

I would, but I understand that is how a society functions. It isn't always going to be fair, and there will always be someone will feel they are being hard done by.

It's no more defensible to have hospitals operating on catholics first than it is to have schools enrolling catholics first.

Samaris

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. Of course it's a realistic option. But I'm not in favour of replacing faith schools with secular schools. The two should co exist. Who should pay is another matter but I see no reason why atheists should be entitled to a free education while others are forced to pay. We all pay taxes so we all contribute. Maybe there should be a national contribution based on ability to pay while individual fundraising is left alone. There are no easy answers but one thing is for sure, someone somewhere will Feel marginalised with whatever way it turns out. You just can't please everyone.

But it's okay to subsidise Catholic schools?

Why should the state foment an overtly religious atmosphere in the country? Any religion, that is. Religion is not a state matter, or shouldn't be. Religions are international organisations, they have nothing to do with national boundaries and shouldn't be favoured or distinguished between in the eyes of the State. A school doesn't have to be "atheist" either, just not get involved. Parents should see to their children's religious education, not wasting a lot of school time on religious observance (or colouring).

Schools should be State schools, as in supported by the state, not an international order. Let them prepare children for religious ceremonies in services or groups that the kids are in by will, not because they're obligated to be.

Samaris wrote: »

But it's okay to subsidise Catholic schools?..

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be ok ?

Samaris wrote: »

Why should the state foment an overtly religious atmosphere in the country? Any religion, that is. Religion is not a state matter, or shouldn't be. Religions are international organisations, they have nothing to do with national boundaries and shouldn't be favoured or distinguished between in the eyes of the State. A school doesn't have to be "atheist" either, just not get involved. Parents should see to their children's religious education, not wasting a lot of school time on religious observance (or colouring)..

Because over 80% of the population still
Identify as Roman Catholic and want it to remain as is. We may not like that number but it's the reality. And you may feel that many of them are lapsed or just don't care about religion, you may well be correct, but we have no way to quantify it so its moot.

Samaris wrote: »

ButSchools should be State schools, as in supported by the state, not an international order. Let them prepare children for religious ceremonies in services or groups that the kids are in by will, not because they're obligated to be.

In your opinion.... Unfortunately the majority of parents disagree.

And a couple of posters now have tried to make the point that many people who identify as RC actually never darken the door of a church. But as religion is such a personal thing, it's impossible to quantify how serious anyone is about their own beliefs. Equally, no one can tell them they're not serious about it.

And then you have people like me who are not religious but also want to send their kids to a faith school. We make significant sacrifices so both of ours can attend a CoI secondary outside of the local area. Both made their communion, confirmation and confessions. (My wife is a lapsed Roman Catholic so they had an RC influence too.) One just went through the motions and one of them has had a faith for as long as she's been able to speak. Bottom line is they make their own choices on religion without any interference from me or my wife and I have no issue whatsoever supporting them in their choices even when they conflict with my own beliefs.

It amazes me how many atheists feel so threatened by religion that they have to censor it out of their children's lives altogether. I'm happy to give my children a broad knowledge of all religion and none and let them decide for themselves. I have zero investment in ensuring they end up with similar beliefs to me when they grow up. That would just be another form of indoctrination as far as I'm concerned and I'd actually feel like I failed if they did. I want them to question everything for themselves and come to their own conclusions and that can only be possible when they've been presented with ALL the facts.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with the above suggestion is quite simple - the vast majority of parents simply don't want it.

Polls show that 40% are in favour of secular schools. I'd hardly call that a tiny minority. Add in the 'don't care's and I think it'd go over 50%.

They're happy with the status quo because they get to have the big days out for communion and confirmation without having to lift a finger except to buy a new outfit for he child. If the sacraments are important to them surely they'd have no problem with bringing the child to a church run system outside of school hours.

MrPudding

Any time you are ready Swanner.

MrP

looksee wrote: »

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.

MrPudding wrote: »

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

MrP

looksee

It amazes me how many atheists feel so threatened by religion that they have to censor it out of their children's lives altogether

It has already been said a number of times that non-religious people (well, several of the people posting here) have no objection to children being taught about religions, in fact it is an essential part of understanding the society we live in. What we do not want is the indoctrination that is being given at the moment, two very different things.

MrPudding wrote: »

Any time you are ready Swanner.

MrP

I hope my previous answer will suffice. If not, I hope you're a patient man...

Swanner wrote: »

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...

MrPudding

Swanner wrote: »

I hope my previous answer will suffice. If not, I hope you're a patient man...

Ah, forgive me, that is so completely not an explanation of what you stated that I actually missed it.

If I might summarise, when you originally tried to imply that the churches, as well as the communities and parents contributed significant, or at least necessary (I am guessing you think the sums involved are necessary as you asked where alternative funding would come from), you were basically making it up? Would that be about right? You do understand that the church, the community and parents contributions make up a fraction of a fraction of the funding for state schools? You do know how schools are funded don't you? From what I can see either you don't, in which case you should try to educate yourself, or you are trying to dishonestly make an argument that might seem reasonable to someone that doesn't know how schools are funded.

So which is it, you don't know how schools are funded or you are intentionally trying to use a dishonest argument?

MrP

kylith wrote: »

Polls show that 40% are in favour of secular schools. I'd hardly call that a tiny minority. Add in the 'don't care's and I think it'd go over 50%.

I'd say you could push it up to 84% of parents in favour of secular schools if you wanted, but it still wouldn't be a reflection of reality (a bit like the census figures regarding the number of people who identify as RC), that when push comes to shove and parents realise they might somehow be inconvenienced (Sunday school? They don't even attend mass ffs! :pac:), they suddenly get very defensive about maintaining the status quo.

They'll answer aurvey questions whatever way you want them to, but when it comes to taking action - that's someone else's responsibility.

They're happy with the status quo because they get to have the big days out for communion and confirmation without having to lift a finger except to buy a new outfit for he child. If the sacraments are important to them surely they'd have no problem with bringing the child to a church run system outside of school hours.

I can't really disagree with you there, and that's the reason why parents want the teachers to do all the preparation and so on, because they don't have the time and they don't want to take the time and they have no interest in a church run system outside school hours. Why would they when the school is prepared to do it for them?

RainyDay

Swanner wrote: »

And then you have people like me who are not religious but also want to send their kids to a faith school. We make significant sacrifices so both of ours can attend a CoI secondary outside of the local area. Both made their communion, confirmation and confessions. (My wife is a lapsed Roman Catholic so they had an RC influence too.) One just went through the motions and one of them has had a faith for as long as she's been able to speak. Bottom line is they make their own choices on religion without any interference from me or my wife and I have no issue whatsoever supporting them in their choices even when they conflict with my own beliefs.

How did she get a faith as a toddler without 'any interference' from parents? Did she lick it off the stones?

Of course she got the faith from her parents.

Just curious - do you avail of the state subsidy to help COI families with school fees?

looksee wrote: »

It has already been said a number of times that non-religious people (well, several of the people posting here) have no objection to children being taught about religions, in fact it is an essential part of understanding the society we live in. What we do not want is the indoctrination that is being given at the moment, two very different things.

Understood and agreed although I don't think we should deny other parents the right to indoctrinate their kids should they wish to do so.

My comment was directed at those who specifically and deliberately ensure their children are not given all the information available before allowing them decide for themselves.

looksee wrote: »

It has already been said a number of times that non-religious people (well, several of the people posting here) have no objection to children being taught about religions, in fact it is an essential part of understanding the society we live in. What we do not want is the indoctrination that is being given at the moment, two very different things.

Understood and agreed although I don't think we should deny other parents the right to indoctrinate their kids should they wish to do so.

My comment was directed at those, like the OP, who specifically and deliberately ensure their children are not given all the information available before "allowing them decide for themselves."

Shrap

Swanner wrote: »

Understood and agreed although I don't think we should deny other parents the right to indoctrinate their kids should they wish to do so.

Nobody would object to that, if they did it in their own time and not at the expense of hours upon hours of my kids' education.

eviltwin

Swanner wrote: »

Understood and agreed although I don't think we should deny other parents the right to indoctrinate their kids should they wish to do so.

My comment was directed at those, like the OP, who specifically and deliberately ensure their children are not given all the information available before allowing them decide for themselves.

She doesn't need to know, she's only in junior infants. I think children should be educated about different belief systems but they don't need anything other than the most basic of information at that age.

lazygal

Swanner wrote: »

Understood and agreed although I don't think we should deny other parents the right to indoctrinate their kids should they wish to do so.

My comment was directed at those, like the OP, who specifically and deliberately ensure their children are not given all the information available before "allowing them decide for themselves."

Is there any belief or set of beliefs parents shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children in?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd say you could push it up to 84% of parents in favour of secular schools if you wanted, but it still wouldn't be a reflection of reality (a bit like the census figures regarding the number of people who identify as RC), that when push comes to shove and parents realise they might somehow be inconvenienced (Sunday school? They don't even attend mass ffs! :pac:), they suddenly get very defensive about maintaining the status quo.

They'll answer aurvey questions whatever way you want them to, but when it comes to taking action - that's someone else's responsibility.

I can't really disagree with you there, and that's the reason why parents want the teachers to do all the preparation and so on, because they don't have the time and they don't want to take the time and they have no interest in a church run system outside school hours. Why would they when the school is prepared to do it for them?

So the schools should remain sectarian and discriminatory because parents don't care enough to put in the effort to do it themselves? And they don't have time, but somehow non-religious/non-Christian parents are supposed to have the time to drive children hours out of their way on a daily basis to go to a secular school?

Schools should remain in religious control because "[parents] don't want to take the time and they have no interest in a church run system outside school hours"? Parents couldn't give a sht about their child's religious upbringing if they have to put any effort in, but it's SOOOO important to them that they get all pissy if secular education is mentioned? Tough noogies to them so. If they can't be bothered to put the effort in themselves then it's obviously not that important to them, after all, they make time for piano lessons and ballet classes and football clubs and none of those are supplied by the schools.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Understood and agreed although I don't think we should deny other parents the right to indoctrinate their kids should they wish to do so.

My comment was directed at those, like the OP, who specifically and deliberately ensure their children are not given all the information available before "allowing them decide for themselves."

So we are agreed that indoctrination is necessary to produce a religious child?

If children were 'given all the information' rather than being indoctrinated, how many of them would choose one of the religions discussed and become a follower of that religion?