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

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

Possibly a Bostrom style cascade of artificiality created universe simulations... But even with these ideas, at the origin of everything is probably a natural universe filled with evolved beings

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

My only point was that if you receive an unbalanced education on a topic you will have not have a balanced perspective on said topic. That was all.

For once I agree with you Swanner, schools that teach - to the level of indoctrination - only one angle on beliefs and religion obviously result in unbalanced perspectives.

Samaris

They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community. That's the whole point of having their children baptised, to become part of that religious community, and sending their children to schools which are part of that religious community is parents indoctrinating their children at their own expense.

If you don't want to support the indoctrination of religious dogma in children in schools where you know the primary purpose of the school is indoctrination, then don't enrol your children in that particular school. Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

And many -don't-. They baptise their children to get them into a school, preferably one within a sensible range of where they live.

Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

Yeah, that bore quoting twice.

Let the parents who don't want 7% of their children's time being taught, who don't want their children told that this religious dogma is the truth and the whole truth (and by the way, if their parents, or their Jewish and Muslim friends aren't good little Catholics they're going to hell), set up a separate schooling system. Because ...this is the way we've always done it? I think we can rule out "everyone wants it to stay like this", because this thread and the three others that are talking about it seems to suggest there's some dissent in that opinion.

Why is it so necessary to have religion in terms of indoctrination taught in school? Why is there so much pushing for it to be the very youngest and most impressionable children? Our universities aren't religious ethos (thank heavens), and the country's survived that. Actually, some of them used to be - Trinity was exclusively Protestant and banned Catholics. Somehow, we all survived it going multi-denominational (although I've heard there is still a rule on the books about being allowed to shoot Catholics from the bell-tower on the second Thursday in November, or something along those lines. This may be a university myth though!).

No-one is suggesting raising children to be indoctrinated into atheism either. There is just no need to get into it. Have a World Cultures class, sure, teach kids about people and their own and other cultures, let them learn about world religions there.

MrPudding

silverharp wrote: »

what are we talking about here, inter dimensional time travelling aliens who can create individual universes? thats about the only way I could square an Atheist position with ID

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How about a link or something to back up your claim that plenty, or wait a minute, a handful, of atheists believe in ID and have developed theories in relation to ID which are compatible with atheism?

What makes them more 'nuts' than the teachings of mainstream religions, which are very nuts if you ask me?

What exactly is intelligent about our eyes, our knees or our appendix? How could a race of being that had cracked interdimemsional or even intergalactic travel make such a sh1t job of designing a body. Don't get me wrong, the human body is an amazing thing but most animals have better knee joints, many animals (even octopi) have better eyes, and there are plans that don't have a ticking time bomb in their digestive system. Leaving aside the FACT* that ID is a religious construct and a religious concept, an atheist believing in ID would really have to be intellectually challenged.

MrP

* I would consider this to be a fact as it was found to be so in a court of law.

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

Please quote the text where I stated that everyone has to accept their lot and we can go from there...
I don't think it, and i'm pretty sure I never said it so i'll wait for you to respond before commenting further...

Swanner wrote: »

I agree with you that the current system is unfair. But I don't agree that we should switch to another unfair system just to keep atheists or any other minority happy.

We also have to accept the reality that life isn't always fair. Someone somewhere will always feel hard done by.

We have differing opinions on how this should be resolved and that's OK. I'm happy you have an opposing view because we get to challenge each other and that usually makes for a better and fairer solution.

But no matter what you do, it will never be 100% fair for all. We have to accept that and work on that basis. Anything else is just unrealistic.

And BTW I did notice the false dichotomy you threw in there (cautioning against switching to another unfair system) You intended that fallacy to support your basic point that we should accept the status quo.

frostyjacks wrote: »

If some parents want to indoctrinate their children with atheist dogma, they are free to do it in their own time. If they have an issue with freedom of religion then they should seriously consider emigrating. Although I doubt any other countries would indulge them as much as we do here.

Right, so we have already been advised twice in this thread to avoid having children, given we know in advance what the schools situation will be.
Now we are being advised to emigrate to some other country that respects freedom of religion.

Even that would not solve the "problem" for you though. Some of the children growing up with a religious upbringing would eventually declare themselves to be atheists, and then you would be back to square one.

MrPudding

I have been trying to keep up, but have I missed the response to these?

MrP wrote:

Any time you are ready Swanner.

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?

Akrasia

MrPudding wrote: »

many animals (even octopi) have better eyes

Just on the subject of our octopus cousins, they can change the colour of their skin. How could an intelligent designer decide to give that amazing ability to octopodes but not humans. How million racist attacks would end if people could decide to be whatever colour we wanted to be. How many skin cancer deaths would we avoid if we could adjust melanin levels according to our weather?

Also couldn't we have gotten at least one tentacle? Those things are amazing!

Gallagher1

Swanner wrote: »

I never said they didn't. And I would be of a similar way of thinking however we do differ somewhat in that I'm still open to new ideas regardless of the evidence especially when the evidence can neither

Remember, years ago everyone thought the Earth was flat. Why ? Because that's what the evidence suggested. They were wrong as was the evidence

I don't share your optimism and I certainly don't agree with No. 1. Again your assuming to speak for everyone and that everyone will share your view once the evidence is presented. They won't. Most will, but many others will continue to disbelieve and find arguments against this newly discovered God. It's our nature to question.

From what you say it's as if an Evidence based view of the world is somewhat tunnel visioned, which it is not. You are right, it is our nature to question and we do question, it's just we just dont accept thoughts that evidence doesnt back up in the slightest.

Using the Earth example. When the idea of a spherical Earth was presented by the likes of Strabo with ample evidence it was still rejected by certain branches of Christianity because it went against ancient hebrew scripture (fingers in the ears screaming lalalalalala syndrome). Same prinicple applies with the work of Galileo and Copernicus.

Evidence seeking and open-mindedness can go 100% in hand in hand. Just because Atheists dont believe in a God due to lack of evidence does not mean we are any less open minded than someone of faith. If anything the contrary is often true.

MrPudding

Akrasia wrote: »

Also couldn't we have gotten at least one tentacle? Those things are amazing!

I don't like to brag, but...

MrP

RainyDay

Can you really not see the conflict between your two contradictory statements?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't tell if you're now being purposely obtuse, or if that was a deliberately ridiculous question to highlight the fact that religious activities are part of the ethos of the school, and if you choose to have your children excluded from religious activities, then you can't seriously expect that they should be included in religious activities like the Nativity and the sacraments, and no, I wouldn't expect that that a denominational school should make any provisions for the inclusion of non-denominational principles.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course schools should be inclusive as a basic value,

If schools are inclusive as a basic value, they should be including the entire school community in school activities. This doesn’t stop schools continuing to teach religion. Inviting all students and parents to the communion and confirmation social celebration (tea & cake basically)doesn’t take away anything from these events. It doesn’t take anything away from the religious nature of these events. It just allows the entire school community to take part in the celebration.
But you are entirely resistant to any suggestion that the school should simply invite all students and parents to a social event. It is this kind of bull-headed narrow-mindedness that will ultimately cause the churches to lose complete control of schools.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it would, but you don't want that because you don't want your children to participate in religion.

How is singing a couple of Christmas carols ‘participating in religion’? How is coming to social celebration of communion or confirmation ‘participating in religion’? How is coming to school at the normal time to sit in the hall under supervision ‘participating in religion’?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't argue with that.

You really are contradicting yourself here again, as you’ve just spend quite a long time arguing that fundamental principle.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Very telling that I would expect parents to be responsible for their children's education? Of course schools should be inclusive as a basic value, but if parents want their children excluded from being taught those basic values, then those parents can't have it both ways, no matter how much of a fuss they kick up!
They already do that by enrolling their children in schools where their children are indoctrinated as part of a religious community. That's the whole point of having their children baptised, to become part of that religious community, and sending their children to schools which are part of that religious community is parents indoctrinating their children at their own expense.
If you don't want to support the indoctrination of religious dogma in children in schools where you know the primary purpose of the school is indoctrination, then don't enrol your children in that particular school. Let parents who don't want their children indoctrinated make alternative arrangements at their own expense!

Quite bizarre that you say above that you ‘can’t argue’ with the principle of taxpayers money not being used for indoctrination, but now you want those who don’t want their children being indoctrinated to have to pay more to avoid indoctrination? Is there any logic here, or are you just trolling?
Your whole argument assumes that parents have reasonable choices of schools, which in general, they don’t. Non-indoctrination schools are few and far between. Most parents don’t choose indoctrination – they have no other reasonable choice.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well the OP and a few other posters got off to a great start by suggesting that some parents were insane, and their children are massive dorks, and that was mild in comparison to another poster who suggested that any adults who give communion should be shot (although admittedly, I think we all understood they were on a wind-up, desperate attention seeking to illicit a reaction), but you probably turned a blind eye to those posts.

I don’t recall these particular posts, but if you’re best argument is “Well, the other guy was worse” you are on pretty dodgy ethical grounds.

Samaris

...Also, and I know it's off-topic, but good heavens, atheism and ID?

'"I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

Pherekydes

Swanner wrote: »

Point is...If we don't challenge our beliefs we don't grow and raising a child as an atheist with a total ban on any religious knowledge is not challenging your beliefs.

Why do visitors to this forum continue to put forward this tripe/trope?

It's indoctrination plain and simple.

It's lack of indoctrination, plain and simple.

Likewise you're absolutely within your right to indoctrinate your children into atheism or any other belief / non belief system you choose.

How do you indoctrinate children into atheism? There is no doctrine. Atheism is what happens when you cease indoctrination.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

And BTW I did notice the false dichotomy you threw in there (cautioning against switching to another unfair system) You intended that fallacy to support your basic point that we should accept the status quo.

I do not believe anyone should ever accept the status quo and i've never stated otherwise despite your insistence that I have...

Unless of course they're ok with it, which is kinda obvious.. Que some jibe about privilege :rolleyes:

I think sometimes we have to accept it as a current reality but still, that in no way assumes it can't be changed.

I would genuinely welcome change but not the change you want which enforces your minority views on the current majority by only offering a secular education. Why should "secular" be the default ? Because you want it ? Whether you like it or not, you are a minority and until that changes, you have no option other then to accept it as a reality

But accepting a current reality doesn't mean you can't work for something better. Thing is though, if you want it, you have to go get it. No one else is going to do it for you. The majority have no incentive to look for change so you need to push for it. You have numbers. Start lobbying TD's, start a forum, get people talking, start a petition etc. etc.

If you're successful and in 50 years, an atheist majority put a secular system in place, the faith based minority will have no choice but to accept it. That's democracy. It works both ways.

The Bishop Basher

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's lack of indoctrination, plain and simple.

How do you indoctrinate children into atheism? There is no doctrine. Atheism is what happens when you cease indoctrination.

Yes. i'm aware of that. We really need a word specifically for this.

But semantics aside...

I see no difference between someone removing all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education, and a person of faith removing all reference to other faiths and none from a child's upbringing and education. The motive is exactly the same, as is the outcome.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Yes. i'm aware of that. We really need a word specifically for this.

But semantics aside...

I see no difference between someone removing all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education, and a person of faith removing all reference to other faiths and none from a child's upbringing and education. The motive is exactly the same, as is the outcome.

You are doing it again. No-one is proposing to remove 'all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education' but it suits you to keep saying it.

And I have seen and experienced efforts of 'people of faith' trying to excise all reference to other faiths and none from children's education. I omit reference to upbringing as that is the parents responsibility and I cannot generalise about it.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

You are doing it again. No-one is proposing to remove 'all reference to religion from a child's upbringing and education' but it suits you to keep saying it.

The OP was...

Kenny Bania wrote: »

They've never been to a church and they don't take part in religion classes. And I'm actively curbing any small mentions of it that get through via osmosis in class. They don't even know what a priest is.

And I thought that was the context of the thread.. I've no problem with a kid getting a secular education where they've been taught about world religions from an historical perspective and where the information is presented in an appropriate way distinguishing between fact and opinion or belief. That sounds to me like a balanced education.

looksee wrote: »

And I have seen and experienced efforts of 'people of faith' trying to excise all reference to other faiths and none from children's education.

So have I. I wasn't suggesting they didn't. That was my point. they do it all the time and it's exactly the same thing. While it's absolutely their right should they choose to it's indoctrination in all but name.

looksee wrote: »

I omit reference to upbringing as that is the parents responsibility and I cannot generalise about it.

Fair point.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

The OP was...

They've never been to a church and they don't take part in religion classes. And I'm actively curbing any small mentions of it that get through via osmosis in class. They don't even know what a priest is.

And I thought that was the context of the thread.. I've no problem with a kid getting a secular education where they've been taught about world religions from an historical perspective and where the information is presented in an appropriate way distinguishing between fact and opinion or belief. That sounds to me like a balanced education.

I think if you read the OP's post he was talking about the specific RC dogma that is taught in class She does not do the religion book, god made all of us . The only religion book at the moment is the RC faith book, and a general lesson on world religions would not include the phrase 'god made us all'.

If he is indeed intending to entirely excise all mention of religion, even information about world religions then I agree with you, but I do not think that is the case.

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

I think if you read the OP's post he was talking about the specific RC dogma that is taught in class She does not do the religion book, god made all of us . The only religion book at the moment is the RC faith book, and a general lesson on world religions would not include the phrase 'god made us all'.

If he is indeed intending to entirely excise all mention of religion, even information about world religions then I agree with you, but I do not think that is the case.

Pretty much everyone on the "atheist" side is calling for, as far as I can see, the studying of religions. At this stage it can only be assumed the other side n this debate are being wilfully ignorant.

MrP

DK man

Op - how do you know that 'over 80% of the families are non practicing Catholics? Catholics are not a homogenous bunch some go to mass every day and others weekly and some occasional and others never but still manage to hold onto their Christian faith.

Religion lessons involve art music drama geography history politics conflict resolution - and also a framework to discuss ethical questions. Christianity is so embedded in world history.

I think you can go along as a casual observer and still decide or live outside the realms of faith.... If you believe that there is nothing behind Christianity then whatever osmosis occurs can't be harmful.

Just as many who are brought up Christian choose to reject it many who are brought up without religion find it along the way... I think you have said it yourself about the difficulty of telling a child we come from fragments of stars say also about the position you are holding!

Teach your child your athesism but also don't try to put a shield around them to the realities of the world around them

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

I think if you read the OP's post he was talking about the specific RC dogma that is taught in class She does not do the religion book, god made all of us . The only religion book at the moment is the RC faith book, and a general lesson on world religions would not include the phrase 'god made us all'.

If he is indeed intending to entirely excise all mention of religion, even information about world religions then I agree with you, but I do not think that is the case.

Don't get me wrong. I completely understand his decision to keep the child out of an RC Religion class. I wouldn't let my own child attend one either.

That's why we went to a lot of extra effort and expense to send ours elsewhere. I realise not everyone has that option and I don't believe that's fair, but I also believe people need to take some responsibility for these issues themselves where possible. Waiting on the state to proactively step in and sort it out is futile.

WRT OP - Those are his words quoted above. His intent is crystal clear but I understand he's angry and frustrated and probably doesn't actually take it to such extremes.

fisgon

DK man wrote: »

Op - how do you know that 'over 80% of the families are non practicing Catholics? Catholics are not a homogenous bunch some go to mass every day and others weekly and some occasional and others never but still manage to hold onto their Christian faith.

How do you know this? You are saying what we all know to be true, from survey after survey, that the majority of people (and the vast majority of parents of primary age children) do not go to mass. So on what are you basing your idea that "they still manage to hold on to their Christian faith". On a couple of people that you know? What evidence do you have that these people who never darken the door of a church (and they are now in the majority) are still Christian?

DK man wrote: »

Religion lessons involve art music drama geography history politics conflict resolution - and also a framework to discuss ethical questions.

No they don't. Religion lessons involve religion. If you want children to learn art teach them art, if you want them to be taught geography, teach them geography. If you want them to discuss ethical questions, you don't need religion, just teach them about ethics.

DK man wrote: »

If you believe that there is nothing behind Christianity then whatever osmosis occurs can't be harmful.

What are you talking about? How is it not harmful for your child to be taught that something is true that has no basis in fact, and which you fundamentally disagree with? Would Catholic parents be happy to be in a position to have to send their child to the nearest Madrassa,....... any Islam that they pick up by osmosis, sure where's the harm if they start praying towards Mecca five times a day?

DK man

Last census - one objective measure - I think 87% declared as Christian. What survey after survey are you reading? Are you also saying that if you don't go to mass you can't possibly hold onto some faith? I don't go every Sunday but I still have faith.

This novena is run in my town every year and thousands attend the daily events. If you drive within a mile of the church you will know that there is something big going on.

Ever been to a blessing of the babies - I went with our youngest and left unblessed as the place was thronged with hundreds of people queueing up. Now I'm sure not all these people are regular attenders but why are they getting their child blessed????

http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/local-news/st-gerard-s-novena-begins-next-week-1-5529688

Blessing of the graves in Dundalk is also quite a spectacle of young and old

You can't possibly compare re class with a madrassa - u are undermining whatever arguments that you may have if you are!

Christiaity is not for everyone nor should it be - by the way some of the posters on this forum are ranting you'd think it is some form of dangerous plague.

I teach my young children about athesist and other religions as they have friends at school - they are not in any way threatened by them - I'm glad that they are open minded and also becoming educated about the world

Samaris

Swanner wrote: »

I would genuinely welcome change but not the change you want which enforces your minority views on the current majority by only offering a secular education. Why should "secular" be the default ? Because you want it ? Whether you like it or not, you are a minority and until that changes, you have no option other then to accept it as a reality

Secular education actually discriminates against nobody. There is always the option to ..y'know, teach your child your own beliefs yourself. It doesn't "ban any mention of religion" as is repeatedly being implied in this thread. It's -indoctrination- that people are protesting about, not teaching about religions.

Secular education leaves room for children to be taught by their parents, in Sunday School, in after-school classes, which a lot of children do anyway. It's more -convenient- to leave it up to the school, of course, but that doesn't say much for the educating of personal religion in the home.

Catholic education being the ethos in 92% of schools means that anyone who isn't a Catholic is, actually, being discriminated against. Not a theoretical discrimination, actual issues with getting your child into education, the "silver bullet". I've also read on this thread as to not having that handy barrier keeps the riff-raff out, and honestly, that is both a disgusting and a completely incorrect argument anyway.

Swanner wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, you are a minority

True, been said many times before. Fortunately, it doesn't always take a directly affected majority if enough people decide that a given situation is poorly balanced.

Turtwig

Mod Note:

We already have several threads discussing the delivery of education to kids. Please keep this thread on the topic requested in the OP.

The Bishop Basher

fisgon wrote: »

How do you know this? You are saying what we all know to be true, from survey after survey, that the majority of people (and the vast majority of parents of primary age children) do not go to mass. So on what are you basing your idea that "they still manage to hold on to their Christian faith". On a couple of people that you know? What evidence do you have that these people who never darken the door of a church (and they are now in the majority) are still Christian?

The census figures are indisputable.

The vast vast majority of the population identify as Christian. The vast majority of those identify as RC. How they choose to worship is their business and has absolutely nothing to do with you. That you choose to make judgements about their faith based on your own projections says far more about you then it does them.

The Bishop Basher

Samaris wrote: »

Secular education actually discriminates against nobody. There is always the option to ..y'know, teach your child your own beliefs yourself. It doesn't "ban any mention of religion" as is repeatedly being implied in this thread. It's -indoctrination- that people are protesting about, not teaching about religions.

Secular education leaves room for children to be taught by their parents, in Sunday School, in after-school classes, which a lot of children do anyway. It's more -convenient- to leave it up to the school, of course, but that doesn't say much for the educating of personal religion in the home.

In your opinion obviously. I understand this position to an extent but it leaves out one vital point. If you have a right to a secular education then parents of faith have a right to a faith based education and it surprises me that an atheist minority continue to call for a Secular only system despite this fact. I respect your right to the education of your choice. Why can't you respect mine ?

To suggest it be taught in Sunday school is nothing short of insulting tbh. Why should those parents, and children, have to attend extra classes on a Sunday just to keep a minority happy ? Remember, as has been pointed out many times, a great many of us that want faith based education don't go to church. Now Atheists might have an issue with that but those that do are just making judgements again and that's not a credible position.

Samaris wrote: »

Catholic education being the ethos in 92% of schools means that anyone who isn't a Catholic is, actually, being discriminated against. Not a theoretical discrimination, actual issues with getting your child into education, the "silver bullet". I've also read on this thread as to not having that handy barrier keeps the riff-raff out, and honestly, that is both a disgusting and a completely incorrect argument anyway.

You have no argument from me here. The system is blatantly unfair and needs to change but it can't be to the detriment of the majority who still want a faith based education.

Samaris wrote: »

True, been said many times before. Fortunately, it doesn't always take a directly affected majority if enough people decide that a given situation is poorly balanced.

Agreed but the change has to come from somewhere and if it's enough of a priority for someone, they'll start either working for that change on a national level or at the very least, change their own circumstances to ensure their children receive a secular education.

I can understand why that's an unpopular opinion here but i'm unsympathetic with any atheist that, for example, bought a family home in an area without a secular school offering. They knew the lack of options, they knew they'd have kids down the line yet they bought anyway. Obviously it's a matter of personal choice when buying a house. We weigh up the pros and cons of an area and for most I know, schools will play a major factor in that decision. But please don't blame anyone else when your decision to live close to your parents or close to work trumps your decision to purchase in an area with a secular school offering because you've made a deliberate choice based on your priorities and you either live with the consequences of that or you make alternative plans. But no-one is going to solve the problem for you in the short or medium term.

Likewise for those living in less populated areas where a secular school is currently unviable. Nothing is going to change for them any time soon. So they have 2 options, they can accept the reality and take action to address it for themselves and their families, or they can refuse to accept the reality and instead, jump on boards for a whine about how unfair it all seems. Both options will probably make them feel better but only one will actually solve their problem.

I've done it, my parents have done it and I see countless other families do it all the time. It may involve huge sacrifices, it might create massive upheaval but if something is a priority for you and your family you'll move mountains to make it happen - No ?

None of the above negates the need for, or the ability of others to push for a fairer system but that will take decades and kids only have a relatively short time in school so if you need to make changes to ensure your child receives the education you want for them, it's up to you to find the best available solution.

I 100% respect your right to a secular education and would support you in a vote tomorrow, given the chance, but never ever at the expense of faith based education and that's something atheists are going to have to figure a way around before they can effectively advance their cause in this regard.

Edited to ad, the use of "you" in the text above is not directed directly at you Samaris but used in a more general sense.

lazygal

We live in an area with an ET school but still can't count on getting a place. The other schools all discriminate on religious grounds and the indoctrination elements are extremely concerning. How......cruel it is to suggest our children should be at a disadvantage because of their lack of religious beliefs in the provision of essential state services. Should hospitals also only treat those of the "right" faith first?

Huntergonzo

lazygal wrote: »

We live in an area with an ET school but still can't count on getting a place. The other schools all discriminate on religious grounds and the indoctrination elements are extremely concerning. How......cruel it is to suggest our children should be at a disadvantage because of their lack of religious beliefs in the provision of essential state services. Should hospitals also only treat those of the "right" faith first?

No parent should have to worry about state funded religous indoctrination, it's baffling that the state continues on with this insane situation whereby a religious order runs our primary schools with our money.

Still the situation appears to be very unclear, there doesn't seem to be any real will from the government to stop this crazy discrimination, but because there is this apparent lack of will the important questions aren't being asked. I want to know what exactly the state can and can't do in relation to removing the catholic church entirely from publicly funded schools. (Not removing balanced RE or private catholic schools obviously).

DK man

'Indoctrination elements' a wee bit strong I think... The op opened up stating that the school were very supportive and facilitated an opt out. This would be the situation in every school in Ireland. The influences in the home are much more important and determining than the class. Do the many Muslim children who attend catholic schools go home and tell ther parents they no longer want to be Muslims

I know parents who are atheist and send their children to the Christian school even though the et school In their town Ardee is anything but oversubscribed. Their reason is that et is a very loaded type of philosophy that promotes multiculturalism and we all know now that the countries that adopted this have had since had serious reservations about this and also that other elements are a bit fluffy.

I think the biggest issue for non believer are problem sacraments. In Norway they have a humanist type ceremony at confirmation time - this could be a solution - atheist children could have a separate ceremony around the same time - the one in Norway seen as a rite of passage and asks the children to make a number of pledges regard personal development and citizenship. Maybe this needs to be explored in the Irish context. So children don't feel left out or sidelines - they just have a different big day out...

Instead of bemoaning about what goes on christian schools I think it would be much more productive to call a meeting and set up a committee to start a school of your own design. This government is very supportive of these initiatives and no doubt in certain areas there would be some demand

DK man

Huntergonzo wrote: »

No parent should have to worry about state funded religous indoctrination, it's baffling that the state continues on with this insane situation whereby a religious order runs our primary schools with our money.

Still the situation appears to be very unclear, there doesn't seem to be any real will from the government to stop this crazy discrimination, but because there is this apparent lack of will the important questions aren't being asked. I want to know what exactly the state can and can't do in relation to removing the catholic church entirely from publicly funded schools. (Not removing balanced RE or private catholic schools obviously).

Religious orders own most of the schools that's why they have such a say - our money is also my money and many other catholic parents and the majority of Irish parents. Our money is also used to pay for and build et schools and I have no problem with that and our money is also used for other things I don't necessarily subscribe to but that's life. In the area where the church offered over schools for divestment there was Local uproar. The church is willing and wants to give away a portion of their schools but they are having problems getting takers.

This our money is a load of nonesence -