Catholic Ethos Day in Schools?

[bob115]

I don't doubt the excellence of your wife's teaching abilities, I just doubt the amount you know about the Alive-O programme and how it's taught. For example, you seem convinced that it teaches in the "do this or else" style, when it doesn't. You also seem to think that it presents the ten commandments in the same way and in the same language that they were presented in the 1950's, which they're not.

As an aside, I'm slightly baffled by the way you think a child can't grasp the notion of murder but can understand what it is to covet...

[Tigrrr]

You're such a pompous ass. People can fill in 'Atheist' in the religion box if they so wish, who are you to describe their form-filling as incorrect? I must contact the CSO to see if they agree that such a form was filled "incorrectly".

Do, and you'll find that they will.

The CSO think the results are erronous? Evidence please?
It doesn't say much for the census respondents as a whole if they cannot get such a basic question right.
The only reliable evidence that we can point to, is that less than 1,000 people call themselves atheists.

Back on topic, I think the lack of movement on the issue of control of the public educational system - or almost a complete absence of such a system - is a national disgrace.
I have no problems with religious people, or the concept of religion being incorporated into education should the parents wish it to be so. In fact, that should be the right of any parent should the facility be available.

My only problem is how the state deals with those of us who would wish to send out children to primary schools without a particular religious ethos. This is such a fundamental, basic requirement. The country needs to face up to its responsibilities in this regard and provide educational services off its own bat, and stop leaning on private associations like the Catholic and Anglican Churches.

Does anybody know of any group that is campaigning on this issue or promoting the rollout of non-religious education by the state?

[secularireland]

I don't doubt the excellence of your wife's teaching abilities, I just doubt the amount you know about the Alive-O programme and how it's taught. For example, you seem convinced that it teaches in the "do this or else" style, when it doesn't. You also seem to think that it presents the ten commandments in the same way and in the same language that they were presented in the 1950's, which they're not.

As an aside, I'm slightly baffled by the way you think a child can't grasp the notion of murder but can understand what it is to covet...

Look, my only point is YOU could do better than the ten commandments if you wanted to teach children a little morality, and I wish you'd admit that, because it's damaging your argument.

As far as I know Hell is as real now as it was in 1950s, that is, if you commit sins and you don't repent you go to Hell. The Pope recently reiterated the idea of Hell, as a very real place. Now, whatever way you dress it up, doesn't everyone go to Hell if they break the ten commandments without confessing, and aren't you obliged to let kids know that, for the sake of their eternal souls?

Don't misrepresent what I said. I said that you don't think it's as important or necessary to teach a child that it's a commandment of God not to kill. After all, kids who never hear the ten commandments get along pretty much the same as kids who do on that score. I do think, though, that teaching children to share is something that is necessary. I, of course, wouldn't use the stultifying language of the bible to teach kids that. I'd use the word SHARE, and so would you, which again underlines the fact that YOU could write a better moral guide that is more relevant for kids. Seriously, if you had ten things you wanted to tell kids about morality you wouldn't use all ten commandments, would you?

[bob115]

Firstly no child is told that they could go to hell. You should no that fear of punishment is not a good way to teach. Same with religion. Why you seem to think that religious education is centred on fear is beyond me, and only leads me to conclude that you know nothing about it, but yet are convinced that you do, which, frankly, damages your argument.

If you're not a believer then some of the ten commandments would be meaningless to you. If you are then all of them make sense. For some reason this leads you to believe that they are worthless for everyone.

If you have problems with religion then that's what they are - your problems. Don't project them onto everyone else assuming that we'd all think like you if only we knew better.

[secularireland]

The CSO think the results are erronous? Evidence please?
It doesn't say much for the census respondents as a whole if they cannot get such a basic question right.
The only reliable evidence that we can point to, is that less than 1,000 people call themselves atheists.

Look at the form, and you'll see there's a box to tick for NO RELIGION. It doesn't seperate out people into atheists, agnostics, or Buddhists. All we can reliably say is that there are app. 1,000 people in this country who would call themselves Atheists who were mistaken in filling out a form. You're not seriously going to argue that most people who describe themselves as atheists or agnostics or aren't bothered either way wouldn't have ticked the NO RELIGION box? If there was a box which said ATHEIST beside it and that was ticked by less than 1000 people then I'd accept that.

http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/censusform_2006.pdf

And if you're still not convinced, imagine the form was the other way around. It had four boxes. One said Atheist. The other said Agnostic. One said Religious. And the other said, "If you are not religious but you would like to describe yourself as something other than atheist or agnostic please do so here". Now, if the majority of Catholics ticked "religious" but app. 1000 chose to wrote "Catholic" in the "Other Non-religious" box, would you let me claim that there are less than 1000 catholics in the country? I don't think so, and I'd like you to concede that point please and retract the "pompous ass" remark.

Back on topic, I think the lack of movement on the issue of control of the public educational system - or almost a complete absence of such a system - is a national disgrace. I have no problems with religious people, or the concept of religion being incorporated into education should the parents wish it to be so. In fact, that should be the right of any parent should the facility be available.

Religion shoud be kept apart from mainstream education and schools should not be allowed to have a religious ethos. The situation where the department pays for teachers who can be fired on religious grounds, and funds schools which can deny access to kids based SOLELY on religion(which paradoxically kids can't possibly understand) is an utter disgrace. It's 2007 and yet kids aren't let into the local school because their parents refuse to believe in middle-east desert fairytales!

My only problem is how the state deals with those of us who would wish to send out children to primary schools without a particular religious ethos. This is such a fundamental, basic requirement. The country needs to face up to its responsibilities in this regard and provide educational services off its own bat, and stop leaning on private associations like the Catholic and Anglican Churches.

This I would agree with.

Does anybody know of any group that is campaigning on this issue or promoting the rollout of non-religious education by the state?

The only promoters I know of non-religious, multi-demoninational education are Educate Together, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean?