Catholic Primary Schools

[micls]

I find a lot of the post here interesting.

A lot of broad sweeping statements and half truths.

The Churches own the land that most schools are built on

This percentage is falling though. Very few newer schools are built on church land, mine being one of them

The Churches funded part of the building of these schools.

Do you have figures for this? Depends on the school I suppose but I dont know of many newer schools where this is the case

The Churchs fund part of the running of these schools.

Does it? It doesnt in our place anyway. What kind of funding are you talking about

nor is it their fault that the state has failed to provide an alternative.

I completely agree, I blame the state not the Church.

A start would be that new school which are 100% funded and paid for by the state are not automatically labelled Catholic schools as happens with themajority

[Macy]

btw the figure of 98% of schools being Catholic is wrong, nearer to 91% although the figure for Catholic and CoI would be near enough to 98%

So, the vast majority, which ever way you look at it?

The Churches own the land that most schools are built on

I think control would be more appropriate. A lot of the land was donated for schools, with control given to the Church. All came from the community in donations of some shape or form anyway.

The Churches funded part of the building of these schools.

Maybe some of the older schools, but not in any great way in recent times. The Department of Education generally owns the school.

The Churchs fund part of the running of these schools.

Do they? Wouldn't be my experience at all - "voluntary" contributions from parents and fund raising is where extra money comes from. Although I wouldn't be surprised if in some areas this is done via the parish and dressed up as Church funding.

By law in Ireland schools can discriminate in recruitment and enrollment on grounds of religion. Thats the way it is.

No one disputed that is the case. People are disputing whether that should be the case in state funded schools.

For a long long time the various religions/churches bailed the government out of having to provide for education properly. Its not their fault that they want to maintain their own ethos nor is it their fault that the state has failed to provide an alternative.

That hasn't been the case for a very long time. It was also the case with care homes, look how successful that was, and how we've moved away from that model. The state hasn't provided an alternative because too often they are not separated from the church. Hanafin, for example, wasn't going to go against the church.

If you think the bank bailout costs money try to make all the schools secular. That'd be one hell of a CPO bill

It would cost very little. Just change the equality laws and they couldn't discriminate. Surely the Church wouldn't object, seeing how it is only interested in educating children rather than indoctrinating them?

[pete]

If you think the bank bailout costs money try to make all the schools secular. That'd be one hell of a CPO bill

Maybe it could be done gradually by not funding the bulding of any new religious schools. As I mentioned above the state could have taken school property in lieu of abuse victim compenation bail out of the Church.

[Macy]

Maybe it could be done gradually by not funding the bulding of any new religious schools. As I mentioned above the state could have taken school property in lieu of abuse victim compenation bail out of the Church.

imo it should be a given about future schools. However, why would the state take it's own buildings as compensation?

[SÓC]

New schools are different but as we know the vast majority of schools are older building.

I know that two Parishes which I have lived in and been involved in (One in suburban South County Dublin, the Other on the Western Side of Cork City) the Church gave existing Church land for the building of the local schools. Not community land entrusted to them or the likes but land that was in use by the Church for year and years before they ever built schools there. The same Churches made contributions to the building of said schools (off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact figure, I think it was 15% of the capital cost).

Both Parishes continue to give funding to the schools on a regular basis from Parish funds. Its my understanding that these two Parishes are not unique and that these practices are carried out elsewhere too. Perhaps the situation might be different in rural communities.

It would cost very little. Just change the equality laws and they couldn't discriminate. Surely the Church wouldn't object, seeing how it is only interested in educating children rather than indoctrinating them?

The Churches dont claim to be in the schools merely to educate children in a secular manner. They are there to offer religious education. They are quite clear on this as per their own rules;

Rule 68 of the 1965 Rules for National School:
“Of all the parts of a school curriculum Religious Instruction is by far the most important, as its subject-matter, God’s honour and service, includes the proper use of all man’s faculties, and affords the most powerful inducements to their proper use. Religious instruction is, therefore, a fundamental part of the school course, and a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school.”

[Macy]

And that's exactly why they shouldn't be state funded. If parents what that to be the most important aspect of the primary education system, they should either fund it themselves or do it outside of school hours. As I've said, as simple change to the equality laws would do the job, without requiring any transfer of ownership, if it is an issue (as that wouldn't be my experience).

[SÓC]

And that's exactly why they shouldn't be state funded. If parents what that to be the most important aspect of the primary education system, they should either fund it themselves or do it outside of school hours. As I've said, as simple change to the equality laws would do the job, without requiring any transfer of ownership, if it is an issue (as that wouldn't be my experience).

But then you could lead yourself to a situation like the UK adoption mess.

Like it or not the Churches in the majoity of cases own the land and in many cases the schools themselves. The Irish State's own failing has lead to the situation where they have to allow the discrimination because of the fear that the various Churches wont play ball. Like I said the Churches (just like any other organisation) are in it for their own reasons.

[Macy]

But then you could lead yourself to a situation like the UK adoption mess.

Sorry, you've lost me? Although I suspect it'll be something homophobic.

Like it or not the Churches in the majoity of cases own the land and in many cases the schools themselves. The Irish State's own failing has lead to the situation where they have to allow the discrimination because of the fear that the various Churches wont play ball. Like I said the Churches (just like any other organisation) are in it for their own reasons.

The Irish State's failing is that too often the Government has been too tied to the Church and hasn't taken this on. 30 years ago you could've been saying the same about Care Homes and the way we dealt with unmarried mothers. Luckily, we've moved on from those Church abuses of it's position too, and we should from this one.

[Bald Student]

And that's exactly why they shouldn't be state funded.

Why shouldn't parents be allowed a choice? There's an assumption in this argument that parents shouldn't be allowed decide what's best for their children, that the government knows better.

[osarusan]

The Irish State's own failing has lead to the situation where they have to allow the discrimination because of the fear that the various Churches wont play ball.

I don't agree that the State has to play ball with the Church on this. If the State were to make it known that they planned to include schools in new equality legislation amendments, to stop unfair treatment of employees based on sample reasons given earlier in the thread (fired for being gay or living with an unmarried partner etc), I doubt the Church could make a very compelling case for trying to remain exempt. And they are hardly going to decide to shut down schools or other drastic measures, are they?

[Magicme]

I send my sons to catholic schools but only because they are the best schools in my area. My eldest son made communion and confirmation just because he didnt want to stand out from the crowd. Coming up to his confirmation I offered him choices. he could make his confirmation with his mates or we could have a "coming of age" type day. Most religions have them, Bar Mitzvah (sp?) in Judism, and Hinduism has one too (cant remember what it is called). I told him we would buy him some flash new clothes, take the family including aunts & uncles & grandparents out for dinner and tell people he had confirmation so he would get the all important money but he chose to make his confirmation to conform.

He has no interest in religion but has to do it for his junior cert as part of his schools programme. It wont do him any harm so I dont mind, he is intelligent enough to work out that it is a lot of spin and bluster, but I do think that his time would be better spent doing some other subject.

My youngest will be in 6th class next year and will probably follow his brother's path and make his confirmation.

Its all just for show though so I cant see what the church are achieving really.

On a slightly off topic aspect of this debate, I was in hospital a few years ago and the nurse was taking my details. She asked me my religion, I said "none". She asked again, i repeated my answer. She asked a third time and I again asserted that I did not have one, a **** didnt crow but she wrote down Catholic as she decided that I had to have one and why not the most popular one.

Lucky for her I was too ill to cause a fuss but I think it was disgraceful.

[John83]

Why shouldn't parents be allowed a choice? There's an assumption in this argument that parents shouldn't be allowed decide what's best for their children, that the government knows better.

I think you're presenting a false dychotomy.

People here are arguing for a system where religious education is not an inherent part of the school system, except perhaps in the form of a general overview. They don't care that there are Catholic schools. They're not saying, "Let's force people to not send their kids to a Catholic school." (Some of them are implying it, but I doubt those people would agree with the statement put that way.) They care that many people don't have access to non-denominational ones, and that the denominational status quo is supported by the state.

On a slightly off topic aspect of this debate, I was in hospital a few years ago and the nurse was taking my details. She asked me my religion, I said "none". She asked again, i repeated my answer. She asked a third time and I again asserted that I did not have one, a **** didnt crow but she wrote down Catholic as she decided that I had to have one and why not the most popular one.

Lucky for her I was too ill to cause a fuss but I think it was disgraceful.

Pathetic. I wonder if she'd have written down "atheism" or "agnosticism" if you'd answered like that.

[Magicme]

Im not atheist or agnostic. I do have spiritual beliefs. I just dont believe in religion. No one has the right to tell me how to worship or what I can or cant do on certain days of the week.

And no nurse had a right to elect a religion for me.

Religious bigotry ruined my life so I refuse to be labelled by it anymore.

[John83]

Im not atheist or agnostic. I do have spiritual beliefs. I just dont believe in religion. No one has the right to tell me how to worship or what I can or cant do on certain days of the week.

My apologies: I didn't mean to imply you were either, though most people answering "none" to religion would be. Most people have a label for their thinking on the subject, even if that label is broad, like spiritualism or pagan. Still, I agree that "none" should be accepted as no worse an answer than any label.

[Magicme]

No problems.

[Bald Student]

I think you're presenting a false dychotomy.

People here are arguing for a system where religious education is not an inherent part of the school system, except perhaps in the form of a general overview. They don't care that there are Catholic schools. They're not saying, "Let's force people to not send their kids to a Catholic school." (Some of them are implying it, but I doubt those people would agree with the statement put that way.) They care that many people don't have access to non-denominational ones, and that the denominational status quo is supported by the state.

Some are arguing as you are but others are arguing that there should be no religious schooling at all. That's a real dichotomy, I've picked my side and I think you've picked the same one as me.

[Macy]

Why shouldn't parents be allowed a choice? There's an assumption in this argument that parents shouldn't be allowed decide what's best for their children, that the government knows better.

They'd have the choice - either fund it themselves or outside of school hours. Surely if parents felt that strongly and were that committed to the religion, they wouldn't have an issue with it being in afternoons after school or at the weekends?

The other option, which on the face of it seems "fairest" just leads to segregation. That hasn't exactly worked well in places like the north for the social fabric, has it?

[micls]

Some are arguing as you are but others are arguing that there should be no religious schooling at all. .

Not at all. Not wanting religion as part of a state funded curriculum in primary schools is not the same as saying there should be no religious schooling.

Imo ideally parishes would prepare children for sacraments, outside of school time. The amount of education time that is taken up in 2nd class by the communion work is incredible.

That said I also would have a problem with parents choosing Catholic schools if every parent had another option, they don't though.

Personally I don't see the reasoning behind teaching religion in schools, other than parents not being bothered to teach it at home as happens in many cases. If the sacraments were separate from school and parents had to make the effort to help prepare the child, then a lot less children would receive them.A reason why the church would be vehemently against this separation.

[pete]

If I was say a Muslim applying for a primary school teaching position would it not be fairly difficult for me to get a job? I presume I could not teach in Catholic or Church of Ireland primary schools? I would surely not be allowed to teach a class in their communion year?

Given the Dept of Education would be paying my wages seems a bixarre system that I would be refused a job in the majority of schools.

[Macy]

If I was say a Muslim applying for a primary school teaching position would it not be fairly difficult for me to get a job?

Could be worse, you could be a divorcee or an unmarried mother. Then you'd be really fecked.