We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THREE DAYS OF public hearings are beginning in Dublin today aimed at teasing out the opinions of fourteen main stakeholders on the issue of school patronage.
Education minister Ruairi Quinn established the Forum on Pluralism and Patronage earlier this year, stating that roughly half of the country’s 3,000 Catholic primary schools will be transferred to be overseen by other patrons.
Catholic bishops are among the stakeholders engaging in discussions with the forum in Dublin this week. They’ll be asked whether or not they’ll agree to hand over the patronage of some of their schools. Other stakeholders include the Islamic Council of Ireland, the Board of Education of the Church of Ireland and Educate Together, all of whom have made submissions to the forum.
The Archbishop of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin has welcomed the forum’s work, but has warned that it will encounter resistance. He also wants those schools which remain Catholic to be truly Catholic institutions.
What do you think? Should denominational schools exist in Ireland or should faith be left out of education all together. Do you want education in Ireland to be non-denominational?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Tbh the Church should run “Sunday School” for those who want their children to receive a relgious education.
Faith has absolutely nothing to do with real, proper education and, as such, no religion should be allowed to have any stake in it.
If people want their children conditioned to believe in their preferred flavour of invisible BFF, their church will be more than happy to oblige.
I think it should be a choice and would prefer the faith teaching to be optional and outside of school hours. The argument is often made that religion teaches morals (I disagree but that’s just my opinion) but think this could be incorporated into the curriculum another way, ‘citizenship studies’ for want of a better term.
Education should clearly be secular. Your moral or religious views are private and personal, and should be confined to personal time, which education is not part of.
For the religious, to participate in ceremonies that are not proscribed or conscriptive would surely be preferable. For the non-religious, it would be nice for children not to be told others’ opinions are uncontrovertible facts.
In other words, differing views cannot be respected when one religion is promoted above all others.
Non Denominational is a very good way to teach our children the social skills they need in this multicultural society, it is natural integration which will help them to better understand their peers as they develop into adulthood without the indoctrinated biases that go along with being educated under a faith based system.
If people want their children to learn about religion they should do it in their own time with their own money.
The government should not be funding the indoctrination of children with superstition. The churches should either set up sunday schools, or operate private schools not funded by taxpayer money.
Education should be non-secular, as it is in most civilised countries.
If parents really want to give their children a religious education then they can do that themselves after school, or set up a Sunday school with their local church.
There is no reason why school time should be wasted teaching mysticism.
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!!!!
I think that there should be no religion taught in schools. They should have sunday schools or after school religious teaching if the parents want.
I was raised Catholic but went to a Church of Ireland primary school, and for “religion class” (essentially preparing us for confirmation and so on) we had to stay after school for an hour and a half or something one day a week. It worked fine, so why can’t that be the case for all denominations…? School was left for the core subjects and we were free to attend the other class outside school hours, it worked perfectly well.
It’s worth noting that the Educate Together model offers a third option – multi-denominational, which is significantly different from non-denominational. They use the prescribed religious education slot in the national curriculum to teach the kids about ALL faiths, rather than presenting one as true to the exclusion of all others. My boy in Junior Infants has been regaling us with humanism and the teachings of the Buddha all year. He already seems to understand that he has a choice in what he believes, and that other people can believe other things. That he sees Jesus and the Buddha as no different from Hercules or Thor (albeit with slightly less exciting stories) seems like the best of all possible worlds to me.
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.
The poll is flawed. I may not want a choice of a faith school but that doesn’t mean I think others should not have the choice.
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.
think there should be a choice but i also think if catholic schools have to comply so should other faith schools ie the muslims schools.i know c of i also accept other faiths as a friend of mine has her kids in one.and when the catholic kids in the school made their communion the school held a party for them and gave them little gifts,some of the protestant families even turn up at the church to celebrate with the catholic families.to me thats education and understanding at its best.isnt tolerance a wonderful thing
Religion has no place in our schools or in the state. It’s a private thing for the home only and should have no influence in society. One man’s religion is another’s poison. Have we learned nothing from crusades and jihads and sectarianism? The root of all our problems. Time to weed it out for good.
The “ritualists” in Ireland have confused religion with culture. They want the rituals but not the religion. Religion is not Irish culture, they are all global organisations more akin to colonists. Time we gew up as a nation. If you want to teach your kids about a god, do it yourself or send them to a sunday school.
Religion in Primary schools – There should be none.
Religion in secondary schools – Also there should be none but that is my view, if people do want it taught then It should be an elective type class, not a mandatory class and it must be taught in an equal way, as in cover all religions, educate students about all the religions, muslim, protestant, born again, morman etc… of coarse the Catholic church would never agree to this…?
What ever religion you choose in life it is for you and a personal choice, it must be considered and made from a personal educated position and not from a one sided(Roman Catholic) forced position.
Babies and children should NOT have this forced upon them.
Personally: With all the crazy rules the RC church has, priests not to marry, unbabtised babies who die won’t go to heaven(tell that to a Mother who has just lost a child, how dare they!), purgatory exists doesn’t exist, you go to hell if you take the body of Christ in another religion’s church or place of worship. You can only sing those put you to sleep hymns and nothing modern.
Add in the child abuse and rape and how they tried to cover it up and how inhumainly nasty the sisters and priests have been in the past to fellow their brothers and sister, the citizens of Earth in their care, the children in the Magdaline case for example then you can keep your “evil in the name of a God no one knows exists” religion, thanks and I hope there is a hell and they all burn in it!
And lastly the image of a dead guy dripping blood nailed to a cross, WTF? this is just wrong, if anything Jesus would want us to remember him for the things he did, not how he died.
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.
And I think that’s how it should be, school for learning, church for religious education!!!!!
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!
All these statements about faith having nothing to do with education are assuming that faith is untrue. However, if a faith contains truths, how can it not have something to do with education?
It should be noted that many scientific and educational discoveries were made by people of faith, acting on their faith – e.g. Maria Montessori, George Lemaitre (big bang), Gregor Mendel (heredity).
That formal catechises ought to be a mater for the religious parish/community is one thing. But that people should be forced to conform to a view that “religion is a private matter” is coercion to one point of view, and profoundly illiberal.
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?
Iâd be interested in the falsifiable hypothesis you can state for the secular viewpoint, Mark.
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.
And thus you agree that we should have non-denominational schools; because you cannot reserve that right without them
I fail to see the difficulty, particularly in urban areas, for those who wish to establish non denominational schools to do so.
I am perfectly aware that Gaelscoileanna are state funded. That is as it should be
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 mine dhttp://api.twitter.com/1/users/profile_image/aonghusoha?size=normaloesnât preclude yours; but yours does preclude mine.
Personally I can’t stand the way parents have to get their child christened so they can go to school and make their communion… and that is such an ostentatious racket that has moved far beyond the religious and into a show of wealth.
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.
my son goes to an educate together school which is multi-denominational i.e. all children having equal rights of access to the school, and children of all social, cultural and religious backgrounds being equally respected. this is what all schools should be like. it teaches tolerance and respect for other cultures which is disappearing quite rapidly in this country. there has been enough conflict from “religious wars” and our children will grow up being discriminating and negative about religions and beliefs. i don’t personally believe any in religion but that doesn’t give me the right to enforce this onto my children, they should be allowed to decide for themselves when they are older after having proper education about all the different religions and customs etc. i am very happy with the way my son is being thought in the educate together school, he has come home telling me facts i didn’t know because i went to a catholic run school and had nuns for teachers so there was only one religion taught in that school. i haven’t voted as i don’t think either option is best.
this is a better poll today then the previous two days.
i voted no
The sooner they take religion out of the classroom the better in my view.
I agree with others about having Sunday Schools etc.
Faith has no place in schooling. It is the job of the parents and any associated church/community of which the person is part thereof. Mixing faith and schools only stands to create tension, inequitable treatment of students, and alienation of the minor denomination (remember they’re just kids). Perhaps basic philosophy would be a better way to go – discussing the basic ideas behind existence and humanity coupled with respecting others. That’s the kind of thing that seems to be sorely lacking from schools these days.
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??
I’m not sure anyone has the right to insist that no-one can choose a religious education for their kids. It’s not what I want for mine, and I certainly want far more choice – but I wouldn’t feel I had the right to make that choice for anyone else.
Therefore, I can’t really vote in this poll, as the options are too weighted.
For me, I want non denominational, and lots of it, though.
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.
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.
Someone ask God.
Oh.
schools could also be multi-denominational. Teach kids about religions rather than a religion, or give them the choice of a religious education in their own faith, and those who don’t want a religious education could be taught ‘ethics’, that’s how it works in some other countries, and it works well.
There should always be choice.
One size does not fit all!
Then program your child at home. Public money is being wasted on teaching a specific religion.
It’s funny how the most intolerant seem to be
the ones who demand no religion in schools!
Its funny how those whose views are most oppressed shout the loudest to try redress said oppression.
Can’t say I’m too pleased with the idea of a government declaring what is permissible to be taught in classrooms. “All education” shouldn’t be anything, choice is a core principle of a free society.
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?
The options in the poll are very poor. You should have a multi-denominational option and an option of a representative split between multi-denominational and faith based schools. The poll, as it is setup, will not give useful results….
THANK GOD we have a decent poll on this site after the last few days.
As for the poll, I think religion is a private matter and if the school has to follow a National curriculum then they all should or should not include religious education. They don’t choose to cover maths,English etc and are state funded, so the state should decide via its people.
Religion was thought in school by the CC and look at all the child abuse that happen
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.
By the way it’s great to see that avowed athiest Mr Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister of the UK has chosen to send his kids to a Catholic school.
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.
Fergal get off your high horse just because people do not agree with you does not mean ram your own views down peoples throats, religion should be thought by the kids parents at home and tbh most al la cart Catholics have more incommon with their COI bros & sisters and do not have any grasp of what actually entails what being a Catholics actually is and unfortunatley educate together is not in every town or village in Ireland.
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!
Fergal: Since you ask; my definition of freedom is the right to do anything I want to, and nothing I don’t want to, so long as my actions don’t impinge on the freedoms of others. There’s more to it of course, as it’s often a pay-off of surrendering “lesser” freedoms for “greater” freedoms but I’m not going to start debating that now.
Mark: You managed to completely miss my point. Read my statement again.
” “All education” shouldn’t be anything, choice is a core principle of a free society.”
You are essentially asking if I am more or less pleased with not having a choice? Please clarify.
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 there are NO Religious Schools, there will be No Religion, in the future, as most parents leave Religious Education to the School System. Very few children know Anything about Religion, until they go to school. In my opinion, choice would be preferable.
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.
To understand education on must understand the individual to whom education is oriented.
The individual is a physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual being and all these aspects of the person must be nourished so that a balanced education is experienced.
To ignore any one simply for the sale of one’s idealism is very dangerous. To ignore or restrict the physical needs of another is now defined as physical abuse, ignoring mental needs is mental abuse, ignoring emotional needs is emotional abuse and so it follows that to ignore or restrict innate spiritual needs is spiritual abuse.
Any education system that is not holistic is not an education system worth considering in my opinion.
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.
If people are so dead against the whole idea of education through a given denomination, why don’t they 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 denominational education who choose to keep their kids in a denominational school obviously place more importance on the babysitting service offered than the actual educational experience.
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.
How many parents would send their kids outside of school for religious instruction? ???
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.
There’s not a country in the world were faith schools are banned and that all schooling is secular and while I would prefer a secular system I know that many others would like to gave their kids attend a faith school. I think the choices on offer in the poll are too narrow.
It is not the function of the state, or a pressure group (which is in essence what a faith driven educational institution is), to promote religious belief.
That is, in the case of a minor, their parent’s call, and ultimately their own.
I think this is a simple question with complex opinion on either side, and I would have no problem putting it to referendum if necessary. I wouldn’t have a problem with twenty referenda on the one day, if it came to it.
Schools shouldn’t teach right or wrong at all or morals or about having a conscience because society today (and government) is about having no morals and no conscience so the children will fit in well with today’s society. Who needs conscience or morals or to know the difference between right and wrong anyway when you can learn irish and english and maths. Sure they’ll get you through life grand.
@Ronan McDonnell My point is precisely that they were motivated by their beliefs in a Rational God who created a rational Universe to go and look for those discoveries.
You state as axiomatic that the discoveries are “unrelated” to their faith. Why?
And to state that religion has no place in the public square is illiberal.
To assume that denominational education teaches intolerance is also an axiom; in fact intolerant people teach intolerance. Most religions teach tolerance; not everyone however practices what they preach.
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.
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
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.
Put this issue to a referendum once and for all and we’ll see how strong the secular vote is now following decades of sneers, discrimination and labelling not to mention ridiculous legislation such as the blasphemy law. If you think it’s ok to indoctrinate children instead of allowing them reach a mature age and make their own decisions on faith then by all means carry on.
i put a stupid point of view on and it gets thumbs ups. Time to move these polls to bebo and put on some intelligent polls here (without the thumbs, this isn’t youtube).
Maybe those that gave your post a thumbs up appreciated the irony?
“”School for learning, Church for religious education””". Sounds like a nazi mantra. What if the people actually want a catholic education for their children like so many hundreds of thousands actually do in this country?? They can’t have it because a couple of egotist dictators decree otherwise??
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!
I’m all for pro-choice. Denominational and non-denominational. Recognizing that non-denominational is actually a humanist-faith based denomination, the option of a religious-faith denomination is needed.
Sorry dude, reading that made my head hurt.
There is a clear need for a greater choice of patronage in urban areas, and I can see no reason why transfer of patronage can’t be acheived in such areas. The key is that the parents are consulted and that the authorities involved (ie the stakeholders, the DoE etc). Ie to give a crude example, if there are 10 schools in a large town – all Catholic controlled, and roughly 30% of parents want to switch to a multi-denominational system, then perhaps 3 of those schools should be transferred. Things will be more difficult in a lot of rural areas where there is generally speaking only one school in an area or parish, given that it is more likely that parents are likely to want to retain Catholic patronage and will not be happy at the possible prospect of having to send their children to a school in a different area or parish. The key point is that in an Urban area, 10 schools can be treated as belonging to one geographic unit – in a rural area, 10 schools cannot be treated as belonging to one geographic unit. For that reason, I think Quinn’s plan is too ambitious, not least because of a certain ignorance about how rural Ireland is structured. As regards the key question, my preferred option is that the choices of parents be facilitated as much as possible.
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.
Multiple denominational
Maybe they did, Jimbob, but we’ll never know. That’s the thing about irony and thumbs up or down. Does the one with the most thumbs up feel proud that so many agree with them or are they giving them the thumbs up to be ironic?? I feel happier when I get the most thumbs down. If my opinion can provoke so many to thumbs down it then it’s a victory on a narrowminded site like this making very poorly constructed polls. It’s like the equivalent of the joe duffy show. it deliberately tries to provoke extremist views and leaves no middle ground. Everything must be either black or white with no room for a million shades of grey in between.
Check this out. It’s good. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/03/10/demand-for-a-catholic-education-has-been-growing-91466-28308344/
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.
Seems to be that only Catholics are looking for this? Not a peep from any of the others ,wonder what the local Imam has to say on the matter.
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?
Seperate from the issue above, I think we have to cater for the parents who don’t/can’t do any teaching whatsoever at home. They do exist, and they are not web savvy eough to voice their opinions here. If we assume nothing is done at home, then we can plan to give a lifeline for kids to drag themselves out of a bad home, or away from a bad influence.
As for religion in schools, I think I’m a minority of posters who don’t want to see it verboten inside the school doors..
Do I want my kids to learn *about* Religion in school during school hours? Yes.
Do I want to be able to do the whole Communion, Confirmation stuff with them if I so choose, also during school hours? Yes.
Do I want the right to decide for myself whether my children partake in classes for a certain faith or another faith or a generic non-faith ethics class? Yes.
Do I want that decision made for me from on high by whatever authority runs the schools after they just listen to whoever’s the loudest lobby group? No.
My solution would be that in every school, Religion is taught as part of a wider Philosophy & Ethics class. A “some people think A, some people think B” etc. etc. kind of class, where everything gets equal airtime and no idea is set out as being “more equal than others”. If enough of a school’s parents want it, then preparations for religious rites of passage would be allowed at certain times of year when they occur, and those not in such a class would cover other topics as chosen by the remaining kid’s parents.
The onus of providing a religious education lay with the Catholic Church, a religious organisation, and I think that that onus sould remain. I think that if a group of parents want their children to receive sacraments then the church should be obliged to provide that service to those parents, pay for their religion teachers, at no cost to the state apart from use of a classroom when the classes are being held.
Basically, you turn to the church & the religious parents and say “well, if you want these kids to do sacrament studies, *you* pay for it!”
I’d love to see a class where guest speakers (supervised by a neutral teacher) from every faith ( & none) came to the schools to talk about their philosophies.
I think in this day and age religion should not be discussed in any school. It should be done in the home and that applies to all religions. We had enough of a sectarian divide in this country for centuries and now it has to end. People have to mix with each other and be educated together. More focus should be put on science and It in school instead of religion. Human development and sexuality should be discussed as part of a social studies class instead of religion.
have your say