What to tell kids when they ask?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As far as they're concerned though, they're not compromising their children's education as they see it, and who's opinion do you think they're more likely to go with - yours, or their own?

There are plenty of posters here attended schools with a religious ethos, and it doesn't appear to have done their critical facilities any harm as adults. It's possible that this may have had something to do with the fact that children don't remain children indefinitely, and as adults are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves and their children.

There are many who it absolutely has done damage to too. Just because you're taking a look at an online discussion forum doesn't mean that you've any comprehension of the impact or lack of impact of the ethos of schools on the population.

I was told by teachers that I wouldn't be allowed to go to secondary school without making my confirmation. I was sent out of class for "being a cheeky pup" because I didn't want to partake in a load of prayers.

I had to lie about going to mass as our teacher used to interrogate us about the gospel. I used t fake illnesses on Mondays to avoid this and actually started going to mass out of fear at one stage as a kid just to take notes.

I had to listen to a religion teacher rant at us about abortion.

I had to listen to authority figures condemning homosexuality as a "bad choice" unchallenged by anyone while being gay myself and felt if I had been bullied I had to deal with it myself without backup of the school. That's not something I would have had to consider in college or work at that time.

I didn't even bother complaining because it was just part of the conservative catholic ethos and I wasn't exactly in a position to protest.

And in 2016 my brother is being put under big pressure to baptise his daughter despite him being an atheist and his wife being a non Irish atheist and both sets of grandparents being non religious.

That's basically the kind of nonsense that comes from Irish education policies.

lazygal wrote: »

Nah, just more of the same 'arguments' that aren't really valid at all. Carry on posting, the points are hilarious! I'm sure there'll be advice on how we should do atheism 'properly' shortly. :pac:

Well I'm delighted for you that you find my arguments amusing. Meanwhile it's not I who am telling anyone how their children should be educated properly, that's coming from other posters who are trying to make arguments against segregation, while at the same time suggesting that parents who choose to send their children to a school with a religious ethos should instead keep their religion to themselves and send their children to Sunday school instead, so that the children of non-religious parents are not having their children exposed to religious indoctrination in a school with a religious ethos!

I would say you couldn't make it up, but that would just be too much irony, even for me

Shrap

Swanner wrote: »

Have you a source for this kylith ?

She does. I think the study was posted in the "Hazards of Belief" thread not long ago, but I'm sure she'll find it for you.

kylith wrote: »

Not only that but it's been shown that children who are raised religiously have difficulty telling fact from fiction so it's also damning their critical faculties.

Have you a source for this kylith ?

Cabaal wrote: »

Actually it is, its our tax money after all so we have every right to decide and to try and dictate how its spent. Only a complete idiot is ok with their tax money being spent in a manner that discriminates against children of any race, colour, religion etc.

It's everyone's tax money so everyone should have a say surely ?

Even those with opposing views to you..

Of course the majority will always win out in the end but that's life.

No one ever said it would be fair.

Sometimes we just have to suck it up and move on.

Shrap

xband wrote: »

What really gets me though is that Ireland had a history of the Church of Ireland / Anglican Church being the established church and attempting to coerce people into falling into line by controlling access to services like education and access to jobs and the establishment.

Catholics and other Protestants were basically on the outside all the time.

We then faught for religious freedom, equal rights and what happens?

The Catholic Church jumps into exactly the same role the Anglican church had during the bad old days.

The bullied becomes the bully and the society behaves exactly like pre Victorian Britian by excluding minorities from basic services.

It just proves that the word "republic" was only old nonsense lip service to keep some notion of being all radical, freedom loving types alive as part of our nationalist mythology.

The positions Ireland taken on this and many other issues are an utter disgrace for a so called republic about to go off waffling on about 1916.

In 2016 Ireland excludes religious minorities and the non religious from public education. That's the reality of it.

It's basically passive (and sometimes active) sectarianism that we accept because that's just how things always have been.

Bunch of hypocrites!

Indeed, wise one. :cool:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2wQDkQKXd4ztyBkNGO681gfM3onYKeeY6EKskea7-f-ksjBVG

kylith wrote: »

But they are compromising their children's education! Taking half an hour a day and hours and hours during 2nd and 6th class away from teaching actual subjects in order to teach opinion is compromising their child's education! Not only that but it's been shown that children who are raised religiously have difficulty telling fact from fiction so it's also damning their critical faculties.

As far as they're concerned though, they're not compromising their children's education as they see it, and who's opinion do you think they're more likely to go with - yours, or their own?

There are plenty of posters here attended schools with a religious ethos, and it doesn't appear to have done their critical facilities any harm as adults. It's possible that this may have had something to do with the fact that children don't remain children indefinitely, and as adults are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves and their children.

What really gets me though is that Ireland had a history of the Church of Ireland / Anglican Church being the established church and attempting to coerce people into falling into line by controlling access to services like education and access to jobs and the establishment.

Catholics and other Protestants were basically on the outside all the time.

We then faught for religious freedom, equal rights and what happens?

The Catholic Church jumps into exactly the same role the Anglican church had during the bad old days.

The bullied becomes the bully and the society behaves exactly like pre Victorian Britian by excluding minorities from basic services.

It just proves that the word "republic" was only old nonsense lip service to keep some notion of being all radical, freedom loving types alive as part of our nationalist mythology.

The positions Ireland taken on this and many other issues are an utter disgrace for a so called republic about to go off waffling on about 1916.

In 2016 Ireland excludes religious minorities and the non religious from public education. That's the reality of it.

It's basically passive (and sometimes active) sectarianism that we accept because that's just how things always have been.

Bunch of hypocrites!

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's more a case of those parents who have everything their own way saying tough noogies to everyone else tbh.

It's unfair on those parents who are in a minority of course, but parents aren't likely to compromise their own children's education for the benefit of other parent's children.

But they are compromising their children's education! Taking half an hour a day and hours and hours during 2nd and 6th class away from teaching actual subjects in order to teach opinion is compromising their child's education! Not only that but it's been shown that children who are raised religiously have difficulty telling fact from fiction so it's also damning their critical faculties.

lazygal wrote: »

Was this a specifically Christian spirituality? What faith did she end up forming? Was it a Christian faith or did she end up gravitating towards Scientology or Buddism or something else?

I would say it probably closest to Christianity but that's no surprise given it's had the largest opportunity to influence her. Having said that, she doesn't subscribe to any particular religion, she just believes what she believes without trying to squeeze it into a box, Same as myself.

No doubt her beliefs will change over the years as she continues to question and learn but for now she has a faith in a god that none of the rest of us have.

Cabaal

Mary63 wrote: »

The Government really needs to deal with this issue and provide more schools in areas where schools are oversubscribed.

But that doesn't resolve the issue att all.

My local catholic school can decide to allow catholic children from 10miles away ahead of my child all because of the discrimination they are allowed due to catholic ethos. Once the school is full with catholic children they can then tell me the school is full as the reason for the refusal, even though the real reason is because the child isn't catholic,

This would result in my local school being full but schools 10miles away not being full because parents 10miles away simply wanted to send their child to a different catholic school, which results in a massive inconvenience and costs for me to travel 20miles per day to attend just another catholic school.

Priority should be given on locality to the school first, baptism shouldn't come into the mix at all for any school. Its really that simple.

Arguing to say its ok to discriminate against children on religious grounds is as idiotic as the people that argued for discrimination against children based on skin colour. Its utterly pathetic and anyone that argues to allow discrimination on religious, gender or faith grounds is a pathetic excuse for a human being.

I also wish non believers would just look after their own family and get off their high horse regarding their fellow school parents.It is absolutely none of your business how other parents rear their children

Actually it is, its our tax money after all so we have every right to decide and to try and dictate how its spent. Only a complete idiot is ok with their tax money being spent in a manner that discriminates against children of any race, colour, religion etc.

To be honest I don't expect much from you when you are basically ok with subscribing to any religious beliefs just to get your kid any sort of eduction, not backbone at all. What an awful message for any child to be brought up with,

No, but for some reason it's "believers" business to shove their particular religion down everyone's throat at all times using my tax money!

If we simply had actual community schools that were just like any other normal public service, this whole scenario wouldn't happen in the first place.

Ireland's education system is all about appeasing vested interests and right wing religious conservatives, not about actually providing the best environment for learning and ensuring all of our citizens have equal opportunity.

The message it sends is if you're not catholic you're a weirdo and if you're in Protestant school or Educate together that you're in non mainstream education.

Is that really how you want people to start life?

Mary63

The Government really needs to deal with this issue and provide more schools in areas where schools are oversubscribed.

By allowing atheists access to catholic schools for example the problem of oversupply of children is moved elsewhere.You won't see Gaelscoils for example turning away too many children who speak Irish at home so why should catholic schools which are oversubscribed turn away catholic children to accommodate children of non believers.The solution is to provide more school places and to build non denominational schools if there is an actual demand in an area for this type of education.If there isn't a demand then I for one don't want my taxpayers money spent on half empty school buildings,it would be much more economical to provide a taxi service to take the non believers to a school in their locality which has places.

I also wish non believers would just look after their own family and get off their high horse regarding their fellow school parents.It is absolutely none of your business how other parents rear their children and you have no idea whether they practice their faith or not,even if they are in a catholic school and their children sit happily through religion class and there is no faith practiced at home,this is none of the atheists business,every family is entitled to their privacy away from judgmental eyes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's about as discriminatory as claims that children are being discriminated against in schools with a religious ethos, because their parents who choose to enrol their children in the school, don't support it's ethos.

Trapped in an online echo-chamber of emotion?

Nah, just more of the same 'arguments' that aren't really valid at all. Carry on posting, the points are hilarious! I'm sure there'll be advice on how we should do atheism 'properly' shortly. :pac:

lazygal wrote: »

Really? This is discrimination? :rolleyes::eek::D

It's about as discriminatory as claims that children are being discriminated against in schools with a religious ethos, because their parents who choose to enrol their children in the school, don't support it's ethos.

This is nearly as hilarious as OEJ's attempts on a thread in AH to tell women how to breastfeed properly, which mainly involved not breastfeeding in front of anyone because you don't need to breastfeed in public and it's selfish to do so, and did we not know breastpumps could be used instead if we absolutely had to feed our babies in public.

Trapped in an online echo-chamber of emotion?

I've some odd memories of Irish primary school. We had this teacher who used to make us sing:
"bless the hands that made the food, bless us o! lord amen" every lunch.

I assumed she was referring to cool robot hands that made the food and for years assumed "Lord" referred to something to do with StarWars.

looksee

OEJ you are not really contributing to the discussion by telling us 'what most parents want' even though you don't really have any basis for this knowledge. If you were to discuss what you want, and what actual evidence shows, we could make a bit of progress.

Roselm

Op I haven't read the whole thread but it seems to have gone away from your original question.
This might have already been said but...
I was the equivalent of your daughter when I was at school. My parents were atheist and sent me to a Catholic school. Religion was no part of my life outside of school. Despite this I believed everything I heard in school about God until I was 13 or so. It's presented as fact. My parents told me nothing about why I wasn't making my communion etc and so I was confused and just felt left out. Don't be so sure that just because religion isn't a part of home life that she won't absorb it nonetheless. I had "something " coming at me from school vs "nothing " at home. I think if my parents had kept an open dialogue with me and given me information about religions, the religion I was hearing in school, atheism and actively compared this to what we know from science I ACTUALLY could have made up my mind.
I'm sure my parents were waiting for me to ask? I wasn't about to-I knew they didn't LIKE religion and so it became the elephant in the room...

Swanner wrote: »

You're incorrect.

She didn't get from me or her mother. She may have had some influence from other family members and school but not enough for it to be a major factor.

We noticed early on that she loved asking probing questions about the nature of things. Same way all kids ask questions but she just always seemed to gravitate towards some kind of spirituality. Obviously age appropriate. We responded and gave her all the facts we had to give her. Again age appropriate. As she got a bit older it became clear she was forming a faith and that has continued to strengthen over the years. She's 17 now and appears to have a strong faith of her own. That may change, it may not. She's not tied to any particular religion and she doesn't go to church or mass but she has a definite faith that neither I nor her mother have.

Was this a specifically Christian spirituality? What faith did she end up forming? Was it a Christian faith or did she end up gravitating towards Scientology or Buddism or something else?

RainyDay wrote: »

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?

You're incorrect.

She didn't get from me or her mother. She may have had some influence from other family members and school but not enough for it to be a major factor.

We noticed early on that she loved asking probing questions about the nature of things. Same way all kids ask questions but she just always seemed to gravitate towards some kind of spirituality. Obviously age appropriate. We responded and gave her all the facts we had to give her. Again age appropriate. As she got a bit older it became clear she was forming a faith and that has continued to strengthen over the years. I've never encouraged nor discouraged it. I've just been there to provide information as she's requested it. She's 17 now and appears to have a strong faith of her own. That may change, it may not. She's not tied to any particular religion and she doesn't go to church or mass but she has a definite faith that neither I nor her mother have.

Important to note however it doesn't phase us in the slightest. She's her own person, forging her own path. We've given her all the tools we can and what she does with them is up to her. I respect her faith and she respects my lack of it. We have great chats and interesting debates but neither of us is ever trying to convince the other that they're wrong. We each just accept each other as we are and i'm immensely proud of the independent young woman she has become.

And no i don't avail of any state subsidies with regard to education or anything else for that matter, not that i'd say no to one. But for now, I pay my own way like the majority of us.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I break my leg, there's not much use in sending me to a maternity hospital! Hospitals discriminate all the time on who they will and won't admit for treatment.

Really? This is discrimination? :rolleyes::eek::D

This is nearly as hilarious as OEJ's attempts on a thread in AH to tell women how to breastfeed properly, which mainly involved not breastfeeding in front of anyone because you don't need to breastfeed in public and it's selfish to do so, and did we not know breastpumps could be used instead if we absolutely had to feed our babies in public.

kylith wrote: »

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.

I think it's more a case of those parents who have everything their own way saying tough noogies to everyone else tbh.

It's unfair on those parents who are in a minority of course, but parents aren't likely to compromise their own children's education for the benefit of other parent's children.

Shrap wrote: »

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.

Agreed. Your children should not be inconvenienced so other can get a religious education. How we achieve that is the problem but I agree with the theory.

lazygal wrote: »

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

Interesting question. There are obvious things that we don't want to see children indoctrinated with such as intolerance, hate or violence but how do you control it. Northern Ireland springs to mind as an example but we only ever see the end result when it results in murder or rioting. It's done in the privacy of people homes and it's done subconciously most of the time. I don't believe it's something we can ever influence effectively.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

There is, because schools with a religious ethos aren't going anywhere any time soon, and so the State needs to build new schools to accommodate parents who do not wish to avail of education provided in schools which do not meet their needs for their children.

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.

They do provide funding on a proportionate basis to all schools, through the patronage system. There's no point in giving a school with 600 pupils the same funding as a school with 50 pupils. I know you don't want children segregated, but the vast majority of parents do! That's why not only do they examine the ethos of the school, but they examine the schools academic record, and they examine the demographics of the school. There are a lot of parents who feel that their children's education is not best served in a school where half the children their first language is not english for example.

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.

But most parents are ok with this. They are perfectly willing to pay for it. They have no interest in paying more taxes to pay for more schools.

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

Not sure how many times this needs to be reiterated, but the vast majority of parents disagree with you.

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.

It's like you don't want to accept that parents make choices for their own children and they don't particularly care whether you find it damaging, they prefer one school over another because they want to discriminate in their own children's best interests. They don't want their children mixing with "foreigners", in the same way as you don't want your children influenced by religion.

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.

It's not religions' desires to segregate children. It's parents desires to segregate their children, on whatever grounds they like. We've already been over the "I pay my taxes" argument - I pay my taxes too, it doesn't mean I get to decide where my individual taxes are spent. I can campaign for more funding to be diverted into homeless services for example, but I don't get to say "I don't want my taxes paying for social welfare!".

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

If I break my leg, there's not much use in sending me to a maternity hospital! Hospitals discriminate all the time on who they will and won't admit for treatment.

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?

kylith

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.

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?

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.

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.