You are right – however why put the onus on the schools/education system? Surely parents should teach morals and also religion?

Completely agree.
The question in the poll was flawed. This is not a Black/White debate.

I do not want one particular religion running my sons school, selecting the teachers and possibly influencing the teaching.

However, religion plays such an important part in society, that I want him to know about all the various aspects of it, to help understand the viewpoint of a Buddhist, Muslim or Catholic etc.. Thus teaching about all religion should be required while teaching about just one should be prevented.

If this is done through some sort of Religious studies, Ethics or Community Studies, then no problems. But “School” should not be the place where kids prepare for the confirmation, communion or other faith’s rite of passage. That should occur, and be paid for, outside school time.

In my day (admittedly two decades and change ago), we had such comparative religious education classes.

Taught by a catholic nun. Who taught how bhuddism was essentially an inhumane religion, islam was nothing but failed catholicism, and hinduism, paganism and others were all small piddling things believed only by savages and backwards societies who reveled in cruelty and ignorance.

So to my mind, unless you count first-hand experience of propaganda as a relevant teaching aid, those “classes” stand as an example of why we need non-denominational education.

That is certainly that is a cogent argument to keep religion out of schooling but, is that not more down to the teacher rather than the subject matter?
I had an Episcopalian education and remember our Religious studies where we discussed the similarities of the various genesis stories and why that might be…
And I believe that your argument may be more about what to do with poor teachers and that is a whole different subject, with it’s own minefield!

It is indeed down to the teacher Eoin; but this was a school run by religious orders and no lay teacher was permitted to teach a religion class in it.

So, as poor as the teaching was, the fault did not lie solely with that specific teacher, who was following the guidance of her superiors in the order she was a member of. And therein lies another point – the Order laid down the rules for the class, not the State. And that’s a problem, because the school was state funded.

Excellent Joan, you hit the nail on the head, I agree “School for learning, Church for religious education”
Wish I had just said that in the first place instead of going off in a non-factual, uneducated, pick things out of the sky to say ignorant rant. Thanks for pointing this out to me Fergal, what would we do without the likes of you pointing out how ignorant we are, remain ignorant I guess or am I too ignorant to even be able to guess that? Have to go away and research the facts on that now!

But what exactly is your definition of freedom?? It certainly is not licence to do whatever you want.

Should you be more or less pleased with the idea that that decision is in the hands of a religious organisation whose head policy maker is in another country and where citizens here have absolutely no rights whatsoever to have a voice in that policy-making process?

Education should be non-secular????? Non-secular means that education should not be separate from religion.

Glad you saw sense Jim.

Funnier thing is 29 people agree with you!!!!!!!!!! LOL

I think you might be confusing yourself Jim with all your efforts to be hip!

We all have to be right sometimes. Thanks for pointing that out Fergal :-), I did of course meant to write ‘Education should not be non-secular’.

Oh, and if I was trying to be ‘hip’ I wouldn’t be arguing with a bunch of strangers on a news site on the internet about religion. I don’t think anyone would consider that ‘hip’.

Hehehe. Now you’re confusing me!

I am not being smart Jim, I think that arguing with a bunch of strangers on a news site on the internet about religion is very hip!!!!

It’s not about preventing religious education; it’s about ensuring that core academic subjects are taught in a secular school, while religious education is carried out seperately by religious organisations and parents.

And if reason is needed as to why that should be how things are run, Kansas has happily stepped up to provide the extreme example by regarding evolution as “just a theory” (which demonstrates a total lack of any grasp of what the word ‘theory’ means), amongst other stupidities. While we’re nowhere near as daft as that just yet, that is where the road goes…

Oh, I know, Mark – yet it seems to me there would still be plenty of people in this country who would choose to have their kids’ educational experiences taught through a religious… atmosphere? I meant a Catholic or Protestant school, rather than actual RE classes.

I wouldn’t argue for that, but I wouldn’t presume to outlaw it either.

I think people still have a lot of fear that makes them cling on to the idea that this is the best way – like all the people who don’t attend mass or have any involvement in the church but automatically christen their children etc.

If they choose to do so Jo, that’s their choice. But right now, it’s not a choice that any but a fortunate and tiny minority enjoy, and that’s not in any way just or fair. Especially when those who would choose a non-denominational school are forced to send their children to faith-based schools and their taxes continue to support those schools.

That’s the key ethical issue here – it’s state funding that keeps these schools going, not religious funding. Yet the religious orders maintain operational control of these schools and have preferential entry policies based on religion. We won’t fund the K club from state coffers because they have gender-based membership policies, neither should we fund schools with religion-based membership policies. That doesn’t mean that they can’t exist; just that they have to pay their own way if they’re not adhering to the fair standards we enforce in other walks of life that benefit from state funds.

Oh, yes, I’m not arguing with any of that. My daughter goes to an Educate Together school, we’ve got our fingers crossed for a Secondary school… but I have to admit, the lack of resources and endless fundraising are dispiriting in the extreme.

I agree that religious educatoin should happen in and around church, not in school – I assumed the original question suggested eliminating even the idea of private religious schools. In terms of changing the state system, oh yes, I’m all for it.

Jonathan, faith is at the very centre of education. In order to educate well, teachers have to have faith in their kids. In order to be open to learning kids must have faith in their teachers. For parents to bring their kids to school each day and pick them up again at the end of the school day, attend parent teacher meetings, fundraise, go on school tours, supervise when needed, they must have faith in the school system and in the teacher to whom they entrust their kids.

Faith is present at every level and in every individual engaged in the education system. Perhaps you are talking about religious faith Mr Brazil? If so please be specific ;P

Knowledge is at the centre of education, not faith. Faith is merely the virtue by which we hold to our reasoned ideas, despite evidence to the contrary.

Fergal, you are equivocating on the word “faith”. We don’t have faith in the school system in the same way we have faith in God. We have confidence in the school system or in a particular school for a reason (word of mouth, we went through it, whatever). Faith in God or a religion goes beyond evidence.

Yes Cathy I was well aware of what I posted!!! I was being slightly facetious there!

Did you not see the question I posted at the end of that post??

To clarify : at the moment, the religious orders running schools can dictate things like entry policies and teacher selection and curriculum for religious education and so forth. We, as citizens who pay taxes that support the schools they run, have no say – none whatsoever – into these decisions. We do not get to vote, we do not get to challange in court, nothing.

If such decisions were solely the purview of the government, we would at least have some degree of control over them.

That, to me, is the nature of the question in the poll above.

Eh……………………..they don’t? They have to be baptised to go to a Catholic school.

To be fair, Fergal, if you live in an area where the local school is Catholic, and it is over-subscribed, and baptised children get priority, it is massively tempting to your child baptised to get in.

As tempting as it may by Cathy, I would certainly question the integrity of any parent who simply Baptised their kids in order to get into a school when there is the option of homeschooling.

In a lot of cases, they Baptise the kids, get a place in the school and then negatively work against its ethos and mission. That’s very sad indeed.

The consitiution gives every parent the right to set up a private school in order to see that their philosophies are catered for e.g. Educate Together.

You would question the integrity of parents who baptised their kids to get them into the local Catholic school instead of home schooling them or setting up their own school?

Certainly not!!

Apologies if I was not clear. What I meant was that I would question the integrity of any parent who gets their kids baptised ONLY in order to get them into the local Catholic school with never a desire to even bring them up in the Faith.

That was my question. The fact that the Catholic Church ‘owns’ all the good schools means lots of parents who would not otherwise get their kids baptised have no alternative but to do so just so they can get a good education.

And saying that they can home school them or start their own school are real alternatives would make me wonder about your sanity.

The very first thing that needs to happen is that religious background can never be used as entry criteria for any school that receives any State funds.

Donal, those in the USA who are not happy with the Public School System (and there are a lot of them) choose to homeschool and do so with tremendous success. Are they all mad too???

Most of them appear to be as they homeschool because they don’t want their kids to learn about evolution.

They also have the resources to do so.

I have no problem with religion being taught in schools as long as it is optional and not used in entry selection. To me that is the ideal pragmatic solution that should keep everyone except the low-brow dogmatic atheists happy.

Fergal, if you would question the integrity of a parent who fakes a religious ritual to obtain the only available education for their child, would you not also question the integrity of those who would deny that child an education on the basis of a religious ritual?

No.

Then you would persecute a child for the sake of your religion and frankly, that’s just evil.

Going by your logic then the current setup is fine, you have your religious school and people have a choice

However the choice is often to travel 10-50miles to go to a non-religious school, given the time required and expense it’s basically not a choice at all

Not everyone lives near a educate together school sadly,

Bottom line is religion should not be in schools, religion is a personal thing so leave it to the family, going to mass and so called Sunday schools.

Nobody misses out with the above setup and it also means in primary school more time can be given to actual learning instead of getting ready for communion and confirmation

No. My logic is that the poll question is flawed because it doesn’t present the options correctly. I said nothing about what my actual opinion was.

My actual opinion is that I’ve no problem with religion being taught in schools once it is optional and is not used as a part of the entry criteria.

Then program your child at home. Public money is being wasted on teaching a specific religion.

There is so much ignorance here about the Catholic faith that it does not deserve the response I was going to give.

Please if you are going to hit the Church, hit it with FACT not with what you think the facts are.

@Fergal,

I am aware of a lot of facts, I just tell it as I see it, at “dog on the street level” if you will, does this label me ignorant?
Then if it does then every dog on the street can be labelled as ignorant, and they are the very ones that are keeping the church that has tarnished itself in many many ways, in existence here.

Question:
If you worked somewhere that your employer abused and raped children would you turn them in to the Gardaí? Would you still work there? Would you support this company if they hid the perpetrators? Would you allow these people to be involved with your children?
I seriously doubt it!

Personally I don’t want anything to do with the church, I don’t want them teaching my children, if other people want religion in their lives, that’s fine I respect that, and yes I know it wasn’t all Nuns and Priests but the church is tarnished by all these evil doings, they are the very ones who are suppose to love, protect children and teach God’s way but they as a whole have failed! They failed us, they failed me! and that is a fact!

You know, I don’t like to be labelled, I wasn’t trying to label the Church or any one person merely point out some points that concern me personally. I believe they have lost their credibility here. I have found the very people who do label me because I personally don’t want the Church or any religion in my life to be the very ones who work there or are involved in one way or another.
I know this because I have three family members who are religious, 1XPriest, 1XNun and 1XBorn Again Christian. Labels such as Ignorant, Agnostic, Heathen, Atheist, I respect them as individuals and I do not label them, but it is always okay for them to label me? I find this really annoying and next time I will say it to them.
I know many people who are not religious and none of them label me nor I them.
Apart from my post above generally I don’t hit out at the church publicly, I just don’t get involved!

Perhaps, you would be so good as to please point out which facts that I mentioned above that you think that I got wrong or that I am ignorant about?
I did suggest above that as an option in Secondary schools, religion could be taught as an elective class is this not a sensible option to no religion?

Thanks.

I did!!!!

Those who really want it for their children. If we removed all religion from schools, we’d soon find out how many such parents there really are.

Just where was I on my ‘high horse’? Where did I ram it down peoples throats?

I could very easily accuse you of being intolerant my dear lady but I won’t.

I enjoy a healthy debate and unlike your good self never take it too seriously.

Perhaps you should have a cup of coffee and wind down a bit?

You don’t take it too seriously Fergal?

Did you not post this under my post?:
“There is so much ignorance here about the Catholic faith that it does not deserve the response I was going to give.

Please if you are going to hit the Church, hit it with FACT not with what you think the facts are.”
You sound serious to me, very serious indeed, you labelled most of us here as ignorant, and your profile pic does look quite religious to me? Perhaps your in need a coffee – Decaff at that!

As I said Simon I enjoy a healthy factual debate!

When people start throwing in what they think is fact, and demonstrate an ignorance within a topic that they think themselves well versed in, it proves necessary to either disengage or correct. I simply close to disengage as the ill-informed facts you presented above represented what you thought Catholicism is all about.

Why do you see the word ignorant as being negative? I thought that ignorance was simply a state of being uninformed. The word “ignorant” is an adjective describing a person in the state of being unaware about some fact or other.

Has it other connotations of which I am unaware?

Sake!

I agree whole-heartly. Education should address the whole person.

That is a rather different matter from having classes outlining the precepts of one particular religion. Firstly, such a class may have nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual development. My few and far between religion classes in primary spring to mind. Secondly, it’s obvious that there are many different ways spirituality can be expressed. How do you decide which way you advocate? If you decide you should tell the children about various different ways and endorse none of them – well that’s not the type of religion classes given in Catholic schools today.

And finally, what about the spiritual development of child whose parents don’t wish them to be told the Pope is the head of the Church, or Jesus is God, or that God is three persons or that God exists? Right now, they have to leave the classroom and get no specific spiritual education.

Why do schools need ‘patronage’ at all? Patronage is merely a means by which the Church has sought to keep control of the schools for its own ends.

It’s something from another century and there’s no need for it in this day and age.

Its funny how those whose views are most oppressed shout the loudest to try redress said oppression.

What’s so great about it?

I’m not sure that I agree that it is ‘great’ (and his wife and children are Catholic, which is why they are attending a Catholic school).

However he has picked a particular Catholic School (rather than the closest Catholic school) because it is a State Funded school with a proven reputation for a good all round education. This at least demonstrates that denominational schools and a good education are by no means incompatible – and he would be hardly likely to send his children to a school which would lead his children to be intolerant of him.

@Cathy: Exactly was Aonghus said: it at least demonstrates that denominational schools and a good education are by no means incompatible.

Did anyone ever say a good education was incompatible with a religious school? As with all else, schools vary (as Nick Cleggs choice of a non-local Catholic school for his children shows).

Isn’t that a good thing?

How is there not being any religion a bad thing. Also, are you saying it’s bad that children can’t be programmed to follow a specific religious belief?!

No Dave it’s not.

It would be wonderful if that did come to pass. I can only dream of a world without religion. It would really help the human race to emerge from the dark ages and forge a path to a future based on knowledge and understanding, not fear and ignorance.

Surely it should be up to the parent to teach the child, no? If parents aren’t willing to teach their kids, then maybe their own faith isn’t strong. Which, in turn, will stop this nonsense of being whatever religion just because your parents are. The amount of people I know that call themselves catholic just because they were raised that way, but don’t believe or practice.

Then parents are wrong. The quantity and quality of religious education in Irish school varies widely and has for a long time. My Catholic primary did hardly any religion and those doing honours maths did extra lessons instead of religion in my Catholic secondary. My parents thought religion was important so they answered our questions, told us things, brought us to mass.

I think my education was better religion wise than some others. At least I was never taught prejudice or superstition under the guise of religion (eg not to wear shiny shoes; that a child’s illness was due to sins of their forefathers). If you want your child educated in the tenets of a religion better to get someone who actually knows the subject to teach it surely?

Religion, in one form or another, has existed for longer than our species has (as we can tell from the burial sites of Neanderthal man).
The specific religion of the Catholic Church has existed in its current form for almost eight hundred years, and another 1300 before that in an earlier form.
The modern school system in any format we would recognise is about a century old.

Somehow I don’t think that secular schools will automatically spell the end of religious belief, in either the general or the specific.

Good man Mark.

Try not to get emotionally involved we are trying having a discussion on whether education should be non-denominational or not.

If you feel like you have anything intelligent to say on the actual topic I am sure we would all love to hear it.

Hmmm, well Fergal, what Mark says is a fact. What you said is an opinion. Its not hard to see which of you has said the most intelligent thing here…

Please explain the exact differences between the “mental, emotional, and spiritual” aspects of our being as you see them.

Spirituality is a joke, a by-product of our evolution. It is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain designed to comfort primitives who had began to understand their own mortality.

Sorry dude, reading that made my head hurt.

Maybe those that gave your post a thumbs up appreciated the irony?

If you are so dead against the idea of non-denominational education, then why don’t you homeschool?

That is a very viable option these days and there are so many resources out there that I am sure anyone serious enough about their concerns would consider it.

Those most vehemently against non-denominational education who refuse to consider non-denominational school obviously place more importance on the babysitting service offered than the actual educational experience.

A man by the name of Charles Caleb Colton is attributed with the phrase ‘Imitation is the best form of flattery’

I agree!

Its also a fantastic way to mock people.

Oh look I found another quote!

“No great movement designed to change the world can bear to be laughed at or belittled. Mockery is a rust issuing forth from the lowest form of intelligence that corrodes all it touches.”

Milan Kundera quotes (Czech Novelist, Playwright and Poet, b.1929)

I think I agree with him too!!

Home-schooling is a wonderful alternative.

If, that is, neither parent (or just the one parent in such families) don’t need to work ten hours a day to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. And have the education themselves to suitably educate a child – there is a reason, don’t forget, why “teacher” is a full-time job in our society.

The proper quote is “No great movement designed to change the world can bear to be laughed at or belittled. Mockery is a rust that corrodes all it touches.” No mention of intelligence in the proper quote.

Strange that you would quote an atheist communist. Also, strange that you consider yourself a ‘great movement’. I was mocking you, not your beliefs.

Quote from that article: “In fact, faith schools are enjoying a boom in many European countries and international research suggests their popularity is based on their ability to outperform secular schools.”

In the Irish context, Catholic schools encompass both high performing schools – naturally given the vast majority of schools here ARE Catholic schools.

And you note that people aren’t sending their kids to Catholic schools because they want them to learn about Catholicism but because they get better results.

So in an Irish context I can’t see the relevance at all.

Encompass both high-performing AND low performing schools, that should have said.

Lots of things contain truths – the ingredients lists on frozen burgers for example. Just because innovations are made by believers doesn’t mean their beliefs should be taught, especially in your examples where the discoveries are unrelated to religion. It seems to me you are confusing truth and doctrine.
I also fail to see how saying religion is a private matter is illiberal. Surely the religious are free to be as public as they want with their beliefs, outside of school?

You should look up ‘The God Experience’, it might change your entire viewpoint.

It would seem to be illiberal to force religious education on pupils in school….

It is Damian.
It is illiberal to force any one worldview on people.
Therefore there must be the greatest possible choice for parents, the primary educators. That includes denominational schools, and includes provision for homeschooling.
It also includes reasonable accommodation for the needs of parents who are unable to find a suitable school.

Aonghus….. I agree, offering a wide choice would seem ideal…. Practically though in a rural area where there is only 1 school it would perhaps seem the best option would be for that to be either multi denominational or non-denominational with the option for religious education and therefore offers the most options for kids.

Surely Damien that is a matter for the rural community itself to decide?

That is obviously one solution; but should it be the only one?

So Aonghus, I take it from that statement that you also believe that a minority should get no say what-so-ever in how things are run. If the majority decides something should be one way, then everybody else has to go along with it? That is the logical conclusion from what you say.

A very progressive viewpoint indeed. Typical bible basher nonsense.

Interesting that you can read my mind.

No, it is not my point that “the majority”, whoever that is, should make the decisions. My point was that it ought to be decided at local level, after discussion of and catering for everybody’s needs as far as possible, rather than – as currently happens in all aspects of life – being mandated by national government.

Compromises will be required – they should be negotiated at community level.

Em…………….Jim? When the majority decides then we see the fundamental principle of democracy in action!!

It does not exclude the minority but it gives them the chance to engage in oppositional debate. In fact most democratic theorists have argued that majority rule is the rule that best protects minorities.

Aonghus, your viewpoint should be completely and utterly accepted by one and all.

Just as soon as you can provide proof, the way that secularists can about their viewpoint.

Until then, 1+1=2, the battle of hastings happened in 1066, and an acid mixed with a base results in a salt solution (assuming Arrhenius acids and bases). These are not articles of faith, these are articles of proof, and should be taught in a different way to articles of faith, which require a different mindset. Teaching articles of proof in the same way as you teach articles of faith is not good for anyone.

And who says that democracy is always correct? The track record of democracy for protecting the poor, the weak and minorities hasn’t exactly been great.

‘the way that secularists can about their viewpoint.’

I’d be interested in the falsifiable hypothesis you can state for the secular viewpoint, Mark. Until then I will continue to treat ‘There is no God’ as a statement of belief, just as “There is a God” is.

Also, I am not aware that I stated anywhere that articles of faith should be taught as scientific facts. Very little of what is taught falls into that category – or can you ‘prove’ Shakespeare? Or even much the contents of the CSPE & SPHE curricula?

I’d be interested in the falsifiable hypothesis you can state for the secular viewpoint, Mark.

“That a belief in a supernatural being is not necessary to pass the Leaving Certificate to a high standard”.

I am not aware that I stated anywhere that articles of faith should be taught as scientific facts.

That’s the problem. It’s not overt, it’s subtle. When you study a religion as a member of that religion, it is a fundamental axiom that you must accept the axioms of the religion. You must accept that there is a God to be a catholic, for example. Falsifiable hypotheses have no place in such a course of study.

Yet when you study any other subject in the curriculum, that mindset makes for a worse-than-useless student, and the mindset that seeks to question, to wonder, to mistrust unverified data and seek verification – that is the one that must be cultivated, and that is a focal point of all curricula. To expect a 12-year-old to be able to switch from one mindset to the other in the five minutes it takes to walk between classrooms is highly unreasonable.

I think you have that back to front. I am a Catholic because I believe in God and a particular set of teachings about God. Not the other way around.

As a parent, I also think that you underestimate the ability of children to distinguish between different types of knowledge.

And the plain fact is that the amount of natural science content of any curriculum is quite low. There is quite a high content which is considerable valuable based on a particular set of values. As a parent, I reserve the right that that portion be influenced by a set of values I agree with.

I think you have that back to front. I am a Catholic because I believe in God and a particular set of teachings about God. Not the other way around.

Belief in a single, specific deity is a prerequisite for being a Catholic. You cannot be a Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic Church without that belief.

And the plain fact is that the amount of natural science content of any curriculum is quite low. There is quite a high content which is considerable valuable based on a particular set of values. As a parent, I reserve the right that that portion be influenced by a set of values I agree with.

And thus you agree that we should have non-denominational schools; because you cannot reserve that right without them. At present, you (unless you are a member of a tiny fortunate minority) cannot choose what school your child attends with any degree of practical reality. Thus there is no right to choose what bias you believe will be exerted on the curriculum (and I strongly disagree with your assertion that such bias exists, by the way, but that’s independent of this particular point). You happen to be a member of the group that controls most Irish schools; that is a fortunate coincidence for you, not a celebration of your rights; for you have no rights in this system. If you become a bhuddist or a taoist or a pagan tomorrow, you will not have the ability to reserve your right to have a say in the denomination of your child’s school.

And thus you agree that we should have non-denominational schools; because you cannot reserve that right without them

Yes, I agree. But I disagree that all schools should be non denominational, which is the question posed. I happen to be a member of a minority which has successfully organised schools to cater for our needs. I am an Irish speaker. From there being a very few schools when I grew up, so that I had to cross Dublin to attend school, there are now Irish medium schools in every county in Ireland.

I fail to see the difficulty, particularly in urban areas, for those who wish to establish non denominational schools to do so.
Or why the rest of us must have a particular viewpoint imposed on us to cater for that group.

I fail to see the difficulty, particularly in urban areas, for those who wish to establish non denominational schools to do so.

Money.
Tell you what though, if we didn’t have to pay so much tax to support catholic schools, if all that state money went instead to schools run by the state, according to the state’s laws, teaching the state’s curriculum, while all the catholic schools were funded by the coffers in rome, I’d bet we wouldn’t have as much of a difficulty as we do at the moment.
Also, Irish speaking schools receive state funding. So it wasn’t exactly just you who founded them and supported them.

Or why the rest of us must have a particular viewpoint imposed on us to cater for that group.

Do you not see that it is the rest of us who currently have to cater for you?
The non-religious are the largest demographic in the country after catholics. We are not exactly a minority. Why should we be force to pay taxes that run catholic schools, especially with their incredibly poor track record with regards to child abuse (and more importantly, how the abuse was then dealt with)?

I am perfectly aware that Gaelscoileanna are state funded. That is as it should be

That was my point: Why not set up non denominational schools following that model? Or negotiate with an existing school to change its ethos?

The question posed was ‘Should all education be non-denominational?’ not ‘Should non-denominational education be available?’

That is what I disagree with. Why should your viewpoint be privileged over mine? Why should my taxes fund that?

I am perfectly aware that Gaelscoileanna are state funded. That is as it should be
That was my point: Why not set up non denominational schools following that model? Or negotiate with an existing school to change its ethos?

Because in the first case there isn’t enough money to go around, and in the second case, you do not negotiate; the money is provided from state funds, paid into the coffers by all of us, and the state we live in has specific rules against discrimination. Forcing everyone to go to a school run by holy orders goes against those rules, especially when religious discrimination occurs in the entry criteria for those schools.

The question posed was ‘Should all education be non-denominational?’ not ‘Should non-denominational education be available?’
That is what I disagree with. Why should your viewpoint be privileged over mine? Why should my taxes fund that?

Because mine doesn’t preclude yours; but yours does preclude mine.
A non-denominational school does not prohibit the child from any form of religious education; it just leaves it to the religious bodies to manage.
Whereas a denominational school prohibits the teaching of any other form of religion other than the preferred one of the order running it; it may utilise membership of that religion as an entry criteria; and there are numerous and serious questions relating to the safety of the children under the care of the largest of these orders.

Because mine dhttp://api.twitter.com/1/users/profile_image/aonghusoha?size=normaloesn’t preclude yours; but yours does preclude mine.

I disagree that yours does not preclude mine. As I said before, I disagree that there is any such thing as ‘value free’ or ‘value neutral’ education.

That is all I intend to say on this matter.

I don’t think anybody has said that religion ought to be banned from what you call the public square. We are talking about schools.

You wrote: “Your moral or religious views are private and personal, and should be confined to personal time, which education is not part of.”

I’d dispute that. The role of education is precisely to develop the person, in all its aspects. The spiritual is part of that. The idea that you can split these aspects into hermetically sealed compartments is wrong.

Scientific and rational discoveries are unrelated to the faith of the discoverers as they are independently verified by other discoverers as a part of the process. When a catholic, an atheist, a zen bhuddist, an agnostic and a devout muslim all measure the acceleration of a mass under gravity, they all get the same number at the end of the day. That’s what “unrelated to their faith” means, that’s an axiom of rationality and the scientific process.

As to the idea that education should develop all aspects of a person, this is obviously correct.
It is equally obvious that education does not end at the door of the school. It happens throughout one’s life, it is a never-ending process, and that’s not the question the poll asked.
The question is; should the state-funded schools be run by a religious organisation; or should secular education be taught in a secular, non-denominational school while religious education is taught elsewhere?

They are related in the sense I stated: that belief in a rational God who created a rational Universe encourages investigation of that Universe.

There is no such thing as value free education: so that replacing the present unsatisfactory ‘mostly one size fits all’ with a different ‘one size fits all’ is not the answer.

Values permeate all of education, not simply catechises.

History strongly disagrees with your assertion Aonghus, as almost every religion is based on an axiomatic origin story for the universe; seeking to treat those axioms as falsifiable hypotheses and to test them has a long history of producing punishments for the investigator instead of being welcomed by the religions involved. In fact, I only know of one exception to this (bhuddism) from all of human history.

As to the idea of value-free education, that’s a nonsense. Calculating the pH of a solution, or the amount of compound interest owed on a loan, or learning the date of the battle of hastings, or any of the other items on the cirricula of the leaving cert, none of these are “value based”.

You might as well decry evidence-based medicine as a faith-based approach.

I believe I have answered most of your points on other threads.

Where is the science in Shakespeare? How much of the History curriculum is dates? Most of it has to do with sifting opinions. And so on.

I also challenge you to name three scientists the Catholic Church has persecuted! I assume you will mention Galileo – if you study that case more closely you will find that his science was not the problem, his theology was. But can you give other examples?

I believe I have answered most of your points on other threads.

I think you’ll find that that belief is an article of faith unshared by others.

Where is the science in Shakespeare?

When he was born, what the world he lived in was like, whether or not he wrote the plays attributed to him, how they were written and performed, where they were performed and how the physical makeup of that place affects the plays themselves, who the plays were performed to and how that affected them, what the social and political issues of the day were and how they were represented in the play and what stance the playwright took on them, what plays the plays he wrote drew upon or outright plagarised; all these points, and a lot more are not value-based, in that there is physical evidence to support the answers and the error bars around those answers. Believe in one deity or another in not required to know about the globe theatre, or to know what folios looked like or how they were prepared or what the business structure of the companies involved in production of these plays were like.

I also challenge you to name three scientists the Catholic Church has persecuted! I assume you will mention Galileo – if you study that case more closely you will find that his science was not the problem, his theology was. But can you give other examples?

Galileo is the first choice of most people; his persecution was the threat of extreme physical torture. As our current law in this country agrees, a group threatening to blind and maim an old man is not innocent of serious crimes.
However, galileo is not by any means or measure a lone figure. Copernicus kept his work secret until after his death out of fear and the Church still mucked about with his grave after his death; Bruno was actually burnt at the stake for openly defending Copernicus (which is what Copernicus was fearful of); Brahe and Halley would all have been put to the inquisition for their stated beliefs if they had not been Protestant and thus under another monarch’s protection; Newton hid the bulk of his research for the whole of his life for fear of similar persecution; even in modern times, Russel and every other social scientist in the last century has been harassed and denounced by the church (Russel was slandered by Catholics as a homosexual, a child molester, a letch, a public nudist and so forth, to have him fired from his academic role after his 1940 essay, Why I am not a Catholic). Boylston (who first immunised people against smallpox) was accused by the Church of poisoning his own son; early geologists Buckland, Lyell, Agassiz and Sedgewick who set out to prove the Noah story and couldn’t avoid the inconvenient truth of the actual geological age of the earth exceeding 6,000 years by a few billion years, were all pilloried by the Church…. the list goes on and even a hundred years ago was the subject of a pretty large tome: The Warfare Of Science With Theology.

Aonghus, I’ll name more than three scientists whom the Church spoke out against. When the Catholic Church said in 2003 that condoms don’t stop AIDS it went against medical scientific consensus. Now, you may argue this is not persecution, but it is blind dogmatic ignorance, which is actually what we were discussing, along with being a good example of when religious beliefs are not the starting point to rational investigation.
But, enough of this, the further this debate goes into silly semantics, the further it moves from the real issue of religion in schools.

When the Catholic Church said in 2003 that condoms don’t stop AIDS it went against medical scientific consensus

As it happens, the foremost expert on AIDS in Africa agrees.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

The argument the Church makes is not that using a condom does not, in a specific case, reduce infection. It is that using a condom is a facet of an inherently risky behaviour. At a population level, it does increase AIDS.

You asked for three. I gave you more than three, whether you agree with them or not. Not stop being silly.

Aonghus, that is not what Green was saying. He was saying that merely having condoms and not using them as proscribed did not stop the spread of AIDS. Which is the equivalent of saying that just having a safety belt in your car is useless unless you actually put it on while driving.

The catholic church – especially in Ireland – was putting about the belief that even when correctly used, condoms did not stop the transmission of AIDS; which is utterly, provably wrong. And shame on you for spreading such tripe any further.

That’s silly, there are thousands of people who don’t want it. The dictators are to be found in the catholic church. I don’t want my child’s throat blessed by some creep who just walks into the school and is convinced he has the right to do so. If I wanted my children blessed, I’d take them to the church. I don’t want the rubbish about st Brigid fed to my child, but every year she has to make those crosses, thanks to the catholic dictatorship.
I think the multi-denominational option is the best one. It gives everyone a choice, the catholics can keep on doing what they do, but my children won’t have to be part of it, and they wouldn’t be ostracised for not taking part.

As I said they can have their religious education in the place most suited for same, i.e church, mosque, or whatever. Nobody’s is suggesting that they should be denied it!

Other stakeholders include the Islamic Council of Ireland, the Board of Education of the Church of Ireland and Educate Together, have made submissions to the forum. I am sure they are online somewhere! There might be a link in the intro to this poll?