Yes, and don’t get me started on the religious schools being exempt from discrimination laws that all other employers are subject to

Parents are heavily involved in the running of Educate Together schools, from helping out in the classroom though to membership on the parent-teachers’ association and all the way up to having significant voting power on each school’s board of management. It’s only schools controlled by the catholic church (and other religious organizations) which have typically blocked parents from having much, or any, control of the schools their kids are in.

I don’t see the reason… If you don’t like it send your future kid to another school of your choosing

I agree, the kind of education on offer in Ireland is a community issue that effects everyone.

You don’t see the reason Peter? Maybe some people are planning to have kids and would like to send them to state funded local school (which they fund as tax payers). Just because someone doesn’t share the same religion, doesn’t mean they should be discriminated against, a secular education system that treats everyone equally is the obvious way forward.

Private schools problem solved

Peter u obviously have money to burn if you think fee paying private schools is the answer. The problem is the vast majority of schools especially in rural areas are Catholic schools. For me to get my child into the only school in my area was for him to be Christened and show the cert. I do no practice only see the inside of a church at a wedding or funeral end of.

I don’t have kids.. But I think I should not tell what an other parent does with their kid or how they should raise them .. Plenty of schools out there to choose from

Yes I agree and it isn’t really as straight forward as just sending your child to a non-catholic school if you want. The only available spaces in a nearby school might be in a school run by a religious organisation. The Educate Together are very popular and are oversubscribed, which should be an indication that things need to change. In Denmark the vast majority of schools are run by the department education, and the catchment area you live in determines what school your children go to. There are some private schools, but they are an exception. Mind you, the state religion is still taught to children in the early years which I think is wrong

Pick the areas with the strongest catholic backing and ask them. Why not just let the whole country vote on it?

The recommendations of the Report determined the choice of areas – not some secret hidden agenda. The 44 areas chosen are areas of stable population, in which there is only (or predominantly) Catholic school provision. The survey is to determine whether some of these schools should be transferred out of Catholic patronage.

Areas like Lucan have a growing population and, in addition to already having more diverse school provision, new schools are likely to be built there in future. These new schools will not be patronised by the Catholic church.

I agree with Itchy, why not ask the whole country? Seems somewhat discriminate to only ask people with children in certain areas.

@Yellow Elk: This is fine with me, as long as these results are not used for other areas where parents have not had a chance to vote. Ideally, I would like to see that parents have a choice (vote) for every single school in this country – as it is paid by taxpayers, only taxpayers must decide on patronage/religion/secularity of every single public school.

@Alex Yarmoshko – Oh I agree with you. And I think all citizens should have a say; not just people who are currently parents.

I think this approach is being pursued not because the Department has some agenda to continue predominantly Catholic patronage, but because it’s what has been determined as the path of least resistance.

Do priests and bishops parole the corridors of schools? No they do not. Most priests call in to classes now and again. Some are chairs of Boards of Management, most are not. I know from experience of being on Boards of Management of schools that priests do alot of the donkey work that the rest of us haven’t the time or bottle to do.

Condulmer, I know from my experience of being on the BoM of an Educate Together school that parents do a huge amount of the donkey work, and also have a vital say and role in the running of the school.

That is, I am sure very true, but as a current member of a board, I know at first hand work that priests do, very unselfishly and for no reward for the community – regardless of the religion of the pupil or family. Parents too play a pivotal role: I am sure the construction of an ET school is the same as a denominational: 2 parents , 2 patron reps, 2 community reps, the principal and (depending on size ) 2 teachers?

God help us all if you are depending on the State to run everything. cf. HSE.

@condulmernnYour right about the not depending on the state but that doesn’t mean leave it with the church either. Why can communities not organise schools themselves?

That’s where most schools came from. Parish schools were set up by parishes: catholic and non catholic. If you want a non religious school and there is sufficient demand, set one up! The State funds schools the community set up, that is why a BOM of a school is the employer, while the DES is the funder.

That is awful for you, and so unnecessary. Publicly funded services should cater for everybody – we are all paying our taxes.

Too right Irene, Communion/Confirmation is a joke, not one of the kids cares about it, they just want to fit in. Eliminate it from the school system and the numbers would drop substantially. The Church would save on communion wafers anyway.

If it’s any consolation, my daughter was in a similar situation two years ago – most of her class making their communion, she (and 2 others, though they are both boys) from a non-religious background having no part of it. It didn’t bother her in the slightest, she thought it was all a bit… weird.

We had a lovely day in Wicklow getting good and mucky in the rain and not a frilly dress in sight.

Sorry BobandRabea Boyle, but I really think you’re confusing Secuarilism & Atheism, you don’t seem to understand what I’m trying to say, nobody is saying that your children cannot practise their religion or will be discriminated against in any way, it just means that their religion doesn’t influence the education they receive, the same EQUAL RIGHTS are given to ALL CHILDREN in all of our schools, no matter what religion they adhere to, including those who don’t adhere to any. Atheism rejects supernaturalism, but Secuarilism doesn’t.

Your children can practise their religion at home or in the church, where it’s best practised in the first place, maybe even parents with children from various religions could meet up for additional class after school hours, but non Catholic parents should not have to pay tax towards an education system that focuses so heavily on Catholic faith formation, it’s just not fair and it’s the child’s education that suffers the most, as they’re the ones that miss out on the additional education.

And sorry, in my above post when I said that we weren’t trying to nterpret anything, I was refering to religious interpretation, of course children will study classes such as science, geography, business, art, languages etc., but god or religion doesn’t have to come into the equation in these subjects, so it makes absolutely no difference.

Yes, but religion & education are two completely separate things, Religion (faith formation) doesn’t need to be in schools, no more than Science or Maths need to be taught at church. Saying that “Some forms of secularism disallow supernatural interpretations thus it is not neutral” doesn’t apply here, as we’re not trying to interpret anything, we’re simply looking at how best to educate our children (everyone’s children) in the fairestpossible manner.

In a secular education system, religious education would teach children about the many religions of the World, yet they wouldn’t promote any one over the other. They also wouldn’t discriminate against children from any particular faith or none, it wouldn’t matter if you’re a Catholic, Prodestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Scientologist, Atheist or whatever, all children would be treated equally.

The Catholic Church doesn’t want to lose control over the Education system, because it sees it an excellent opportunity to brain wash children into believing its utter nonsense; if Communion & Confirmation weren’t included as part of our schooling, do you really think there would be as many kids doing it? It’s all about the Church wanting to keep its position of power & control. Francis Xavier, the co-founder of the Jesuit Order once said “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”.

Ireland spends the highest percentage of class time on religion in the OECD table of developed countries at both primary and second levels. At primary level, 10% of class time is spent on religion, over double the amount in other OECD countries. At second level, the amount of instruction time devoted to matters of the spirit is 9% — three times the OECD average. Seriously, we need to ask ourselves, do we really want our children spending so much time on religion? Especially when we’re falling behind on subjects such as Maths & Science. School for education, church for faith formation, it’s that simple!!

@P Wurple: If this is true – this is exactly where I have problem with such changes. Multi-denominational/secular schools have no discriminating policy against any child whatsoever – first come/first served, all are welcomed.

On other hand, religious schools (mostly Catholics) have legalised discrimination policy against non-catholic parents of a child (primary school child cannot possibly have any religion – too young for this). They call this “protecting ethos”.

I would like to see what happens if any school will add into it’s ethos “white Irish Catholics only” policy. Why not? It is a sick ethos, but nevertheless an ethos in its own right.

It is very simple: any school in receiving of public funds MUST NOT have any discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation of parents/children.

Very different question – should religion be allowed in schools at all.

Yes, but they won’t have as much of a choice; these pollings are taking place school by school. Therefore, it is quite likely that it might result in more VECs than Educate Together School, as they are the ones that win each particular campaign. However, that might leave me without the school of my choice near me when the time comes to send my son to school. This is far from a well thought out hand over.

Hi BobandRabea Boyle, I’m not sure if you’re confusing Secularism with Atheism, if I had said Atheist schools were the best way forward, then fair enough you would be right to say that it’s the same as a Muslim saying that all schools should follow Islam, but Secularism simply means that something’s not connected to religion, it’s a neutral position, a fair system for children of ALL religions & none.

Sounds great….wish our system was like that.

How can you say religion is harmless when it suppresses free thought and criticism? If people are angry it is only because there is no room made for different viewpoints.

That may be just in one school, but when I was in primary (8 years ago) the non-religious were left out in 6th class for the confirmation and thinking back the same thing happened in 2nd class for the communion.
Religion should stay out of the state run schools and be put on the parent to teach it in their own time.

That’s why I said “it showed how far the Church had come along”. In other schools, there would be large numbers of foreign nationals so they would probably not wish to be included in the ceremony. As this particular child was the only foreign national, the school and the family felt it would be nice to include him.

What I’m trying to say is that just because there is this one case doesn’t belittle the need for a separation from the church for state run schools.

Your wrong about Fine Gael – “party of the progressive centre” conforming strongly to the ideals of Christian democracy.

Ask Lucinda what she thinks of gay marriage while your at it.

Well said. Tom

Catholic schools get better results because of the sectarian nature of our school system. The government allows Catholic schools to refuse non Catholic pupils. i.e. those of foreign extraction who are learning through a second language. They all get piled into Educate Together schools and hence do less well. I blame the Catholic Church and the state for that. Segregating children is disgusting and that’s effectively what is happening here.

That is an unfounded and ridiculous statement. There are very few Educate Together schools with disadvantaged status. They receive preferential treatment as regards extensions etc while parochial schools struggle with what they have. Parish schools have struggled for years to do the very best for children who do not have english as a first language, for people from the Traveling Community, children with special needs. With all the cut backs these schools have been cut to the bone when non parish schools get everything that is looked for.

@Martin, that is complete nonsense! I live in Dublin 15 where there is a massive number of foreign nationals and I can assure you, they are all attending the local schools and without any problems enrolling. There are 3 ET schools, one just opened, I Gaelscoil and at least 20 other schools. The Catholic school across the road seems to have more African kids than Irish so they clearly got their kids in and I see foreign kids in all the other uniforms at different stages. Every child is entitled to attend the school in their catchment area. The problem that arose a few years ago was Dublin 15 had a school shortage because there were thousands of houses built, families moving in but no new schools to accomodate them.

From a theistic point of view, the evidence is simply resounding! However evidence by itself is not decisive in nature and must be understood in the context of a person’s worldview. For example, as an evolutionist, you take great pride in the evidence of the fossil record to support your view. We know that scientists can see the fossils, examine them with the use of scientific tools and make some amazing discoveries about their current state. However, how the fossils got there is outside the realm of observational science and scientists must apply their interpretation as to how they believe the fossils “arrived”. This is what most people fail to understand; you see creation scientists (with secular qualifications) also observe exactly the same evidence, in this example that would be fossils, and apply pretty much exactly the same tests and operational science to gain understanding of their present state. However, concerning their past these scientists draw completely different conclusions: same evidence, same facts, same science but different interpretation. Evolutionists believe that the fossils support their theory of small changes within living and non living organisms over long periods of time, while Biblical creationists believe that the fossils supports their theory of a world-wide flood in the times of Noah as outlined in the Bible.
I understand that you would reject Noah’s flood etc., however the reason you reject it is not because of what the evidence says (what else would one expect to find after a world-wide flood but millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth?), but rather because of the way you view the world (your worldview). Therefore, all of the evidence in the world like the stars of heaven, the persuasiveness of the sea and its inhabitants, the wonders revealed in microbiology (ex. the intricacies of the human cell), the ability of the brain to understand the mind, love, and on and on I could go would probably never convince you of the existence of God.

This is why I come back to the point of private schools. Our starting point (worldview) affects everything we know and believe (including education). If you would like secular schools, with secular presuppositions, you too can support a private school which operates in this fashion.
Trust this makes sense. Bob

In my last post I had made the point that you probably wouldn’t accept
any evidence I presented in favour of creationism because of your
presuppositions, and this is exactly what has happened.  In response
to some of your comments:

“don’t convince me that a supernatural god exists, is because none of
those things are considered to be evidence” – This is exactly what I
said, you will apply your worldview to the evidence.  The fact that
you don’t accept my interpretation or point of view is because you
only see things through the eyes of evolution and NOT because of the
evidence.

“Wow, I’m in total awe of this World, so instead of studying the facts
and coming up with real answers (as scientists continuously strive to
do), I’m just going say “God did it”.  This is actually referred to as
the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.  You define “real answers” and then
reject all other positions because they don’t fit your definition,
this is simply arbitrary.  God makes perfect sense in the real world
but not in the evolutionary one.

“And with regards to the story of Noah’s Ark and the great flood, I
reject the story because there’s absolutely no evidence for it”.  Not
true, you simply “reject” or reinterpret all the suggested evidence on
the basis of your worldview (please read what I have posted earlier).
There are over 400 known flood legends from different countries around
the world (which agree on most points). The Bible marries perfectly
with operational science, but if you have a logical argument to
support this claim of “no evidence” I’d love to hear it?

“Well I’m afraid it’s not that simple, you must also ask, how & why
was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution?”
It’s a well known fact that the fossil record differs across the
geological column, and besides this you must assume evolution before
you draw this conclusion from the “facts”…which is what I have been
saying.  If evolution were true, why don’t we find the much needed
transitional fossils in the record that Darwin proposed we would find
if his theory were true? and why do we find poly strata fossils across
different layers of rock supposedly millions of years apart (ex. trees
standing upside down stretching through numerous layers?).

“ Why didn’t at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the
elephants? Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?” How do you
know they didn’t make it to high ground? The ones that made it to high
ground are the ones that simply drowned and never fossilised…The
very fact that we find fossilised plants and animals serves as
excellent evidence for a worldwide flood as in order for things to
fossilise, a fast burial in water or sand is almost always necessary
(explains why almost all of the geological column is made up of sand
stone – rock laid by water.  What further evidence would you require?)

“How coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved
intact with other fossils below them?” Not sure how this proves
molecules to man evolution?

“haven’t even considered how the Ark was built, how the animals (two
of every kind) were gathered from around the world, how they all fit
onto the boat, how each animal was cared for under such conditions and
how they all survived on the boat together” Have you read the Biblical
account? Is this sufficient evidence to support human evolution from
non-living matter over billions of years?  Have you any idea how big
the Ark was or how many kinds of animals Noah had to bring on?

I could go on and on responding to your claims however, you need to
see that both you and I are interpreting all proposed evidence through
our worldview and that no matter what evidence either of us offer to
support our position the other will come up with their own
interpretation of the facts.
Can you see this?

A pity for the (large) minority of children who will be forcibly indoctrinated in your religion against the will of their parents. But I suppose that’s what you imagine democracy to be. Aren’t you lucky to be in the majority?

“you’re delusional, your religious upbringing & indoctrination has you so convinced that the stories in the bible are true, that you’re willing to deny the theory of evolution because of it.”
Have you any logical argument to make against the truth contained in the Bible or are you going to continue to make arbitrary statements unbacked by any facts?

“For some reason you choose to favour a book that’s full of contridictions & inconsistencies”
By what standard do you judge the Bible? According to evolution we evolved from non-living matter over billions of years (which of course you accept by faith) but if this be true what standard are you imposing upon me or my views and why should I accept these standards? Do you accept the laws of logic and if so how can you account for their existence?

“over a field of science that has held up to scrutiny & peer review since Darwin first published his works in 1859.”
Scientists get it wrong all the time, and that’s ok. Their theories are constantly “evolving” in line with the latest discoveries – so yeah, I am choosing to believe the infallible word of God over the fallible opinion of man, unless you can provide a logical reason for me not to. Secular scientists are turning away from Darwinian evolution because of the embarrassing lack of transitional fossils leaving them with the unscientific notion of punctuated equilibrium.

“Even the last Pope, John Paul II didn’t deny evolution.”
The Pope unfortunately believed a number of things which disagreed with scripture, evolution was one of these.

“You come across as a smart guy”
Thank you, so too do you!

“and that is why I genuinely think you are delusional, simply because of religious indoctrination (as I admit I was myself once upon a time).”
No one is presuppositionally “neutral” therefore we all, to some degree or another, take certain things for-granted in our pursuit of knowledge without having proved our position. You call this “indoctrination” whilst most people call it philosophy.

“The facts are there for all to see”
I strongly recommend that you read up a little on philosophy, this will better your understanding on the nature of this worldview debate. But I will say this one last time – evidence by itself is never decisive and must be interpreted. Therefore evidence alone can not settle the debate.

“Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there’s now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related”
That’s simply untrue… very few arguable cases have been discovered and many of these found to be fraudulent. Concerning Archaeopteryx, a new find is forcing evolutionists to side-line Archaeopteryx and change their story. Chinese scientists recently discovered another creature with “feathers,” named Xiaotingia zhengi, which evolutionists view as older than Archaeopteryx, based on their old-age dating assumptions. After comparing both of these creatures with modern birds and dinosaurs, the researchers concluded that neither is directly related to modern birds. In fact, they propose classifying both Archaeopteryx and Xiaotingia zhengi in the dinosaur group of Velociraptor. If you would like to name a few more “transitional” fossils I would be happy to discuss them.

“if you decide to deny these transitional fossils and instead are looking for a Crocoduck (half crocodile, half duck) or a Fronkey (frog & monkey”
I’m not looking for half man half ape fossils, I’m asking the evolutionist to back up Darwin’s claim and provide the many transitional fossils necessary showing the slow GRADUAL changes occurring across different species.

“well then I hate to disappoint you, but that is not how evolution works.”
You’ve not disappointed me, evolution is simply untrue and you’ve provided no reason for me to believe otherwise.

“I’m open to the idea that there COULD BE a superernatural god out there, show me any real evidence and I’ll be happy to accept facts”
That’s great to hear, however I’m not sure if you’ve understood yet what I’ve been saying about evidence, facts and interpretations. Any evidence that I suggest for creation you will simply reinterpret it in the light of your naturalistic reasoning, like you’ve done earlier today (I’d encourage you to read over our comments and look out for where you have done so) – Don’t get me wrong, I do the same, everyone does. However the real clincher came for me when I began to realise that only the Biblical God could provide the preconditions necessary for intelligence to make sense. Ask yourself, how is it that the laws of logic, as universal, invariant, abstract entities (which govern our reasoning – i.e. precondition of intelligence) exist if everything came about from matter? I’m asking you as a promoter of evolution, to explain to me a non-believer in evolution, how a non physical entity, such as the laws of logic, can make sense if evolution be true?

“There might well be a god hiding himself away in some corner of the universe, putting us through a test here on Earth to see if we’re gullable enough to believe in things solely on the basis of blind faith”
This is not how the Bible represents God, so I will join you in its refutation. However, let me point out that you too accept evolution by blind faith and just like the creationist you then use the “facts” of science to try and back up your theory.

“when you step away from your religious indoctrination & ask yourself, how likely it really is for this crazy stuff to be true, you quickly realise that it’s complete nonsense.”
I have done so and found it to be incredibly true. In fact I would ask you to step away from your worldview for a moment, even for arguments sake, and critique it on the basis of the question that I asked just above that is – I’m asking you as a promoter of evolution, to explain to me a non-believer in evolution, how a non physical entity, such as the laws of logic, can make sense if evolution be true?
I honestly look forward to your reply. :-)

Good point. The property tax on all religious property is long time overdue :)

Nope, I would think they owe the state plenty of money that they promised as part of the redress to abuse survivors but haven’t been able pay.

In a word.. No. The transfer of school infrastructure owned by religious orders was recommended as part of the Ryan Report and is being negotiated by the Department of Education.

Visible structure of paedophile protectors.

Removing the link with that structure takes a foreign power out of our schools and gives control of our schools to the local people it affects and will hopefully end state sponsored childhood indoctrination.

How on earth do you think that men in dresses in some far off country is superior beggars belief.

“Catholicism is a community of souls with a visible structure” – What does this mean? It sounds nice, but what does it actually mean?
The link you’re talking about is a link between the education of people (not souls) and the teachings of 1 of the many religions in the world. I wouldn’t want my children educated by a church but you’re saying that they should be forced to because you see it as superior. Simply by being attached to the church I see it as inferior; because the teachings of the catholic church, in my eyes, are bordering on the insane and almost criminal.

I’d like to have the option to educate my children in an environment away from this or any other church. I pay my taxes and it’s my right, just as it is your right. I also have a strong belief that the 2 or 3 hours a week where kids learn prayers etc could be better spent learning a new language or doing maths or learning about nature. Imagine if you had an extra 3000 hours over your education dedicated to science.

“Visible structure of paedophile protectors.” Strange how many commentators on this site were very silent on the tragic report published yesterday. You have to ask do people really care about the welfare of children or their suffering. it seems that when child abuse is brought up here it is in reaction to the Catholic Church in a general sense. Check the two articles posted in the last few days on the HSE report and point out to me the righteous indignation that is normally articulated? If what I say is true, and I can’t judge the motives of others, then really we have learned nothing….nor do we really care.

waffle

Nobody is stopping you from giving religious instruction to your children in your own time

Religion in schools is a good thing. It helps teach kids right from wrong, morals etc. the problem is that most schools don’t teach religion. They teach Catholicism. nRemoving any link between the catholic church and schools can only be a good thing. More diversity, teaching kids about world religions instead of the most corrupt institution on the planet

I almost agree with you Joseph, but I would tweak it a little by saying “learning ABOUT religions is a good thing”
Religion is entirely unnecessary to learn right from wrong and moral issues. Religion is not a beacon of morality, if it was then its message would not change over time as it does. The morality preached by religion is just the views of its current congregation, stained by history.

Abused kids, check. Covered it up, check. Abused unmarried mothers, check. Covered it up, check. Instructed doctors to cut open women’s pelvises, check. Covered it up, check. Pope describes all this as a mystery, check.

Community of souls you say? The wrong type of souls.

To answer your comment directly. Society is the superior structure you claim doesn’t exist.

Um.. No. A secular patron would, by definition, tolerate pupils of all faiths and none. But would not spend valuable school time indoctrinating children in a specific faith. That is for parents to do in their own time, and not at taxpayers expense.

I’ve yet to hear about Non denominational groups abusing kids, covering up abuse and believing in the tooth fairy.

Secularism is not an exclusive or excluding religion – it is not a religion at all – it simply means that we decide, where there are people with a different religious beliefs and none, NOT to privilege one particular religious belief system. In this way, secularism embraces and does not exclude anybody from any background or belief system. It takes religion out of the picture and so it can accommodate EVERYBODY. How can non-denominational be sectarian as you say – it is an oxymoron! How can a school with a specific Catholic ethos that permeates their whole curriculum truly accommodate Muslims and people with other beliefs better than a secular (ie not privileging any one belief system) school??? I do not want my child to be “tolerated” in a Catholic School. If it is so OK and will make no difference to the child, then why not have all Muslim schools, and they can then “accommodate” and “tolerate” Christian children!!! Here’s a simile: if you have people who are Green, Blue, Pink and of no colour would you: A. have schools that cater for pink children, but tell the others they can attend so long as they go along with the idea that pink is the best thing to be, or would you have either rainbow schools to cater for all children, or better still ditch the stupid idea of categorising schools by colour at all and just have a school that caters for all children!