´óÏó´«Ã½

Whilst I've no doubt that Robinson's remarks were (at least partly) inspired by his own brand of religious intolerance, the fact remains that what he said was correct.

The fact that Catholic apologists are coming out in force to try to cling onto their unfair advantages is surely not newsworthy - if they were to do anything else that that really would be.

We Catholic apologists are much maligned: in fact, I'm of the opinion that we should fund our own schools, although for the good of the Church, not the state.

Thousands of Catholics have been educated in the integrated system and they are not any less Catholic for that. There is no such thing as Catholic education, Catholic maths is the same as non Catholic maths. Only the religious preperation is unique but there are ways to cater for that in a properly integrated system and the RC church know that because they assist the integrated schools in their preparation of RC children. Educating children together and allowing different religious identities to flourish is not as difficult as splitting the atom. It just needs a committee of well meaning people and a desire to end the pointless seperation of our children which only helps to poison our society.

Catholics don't have an unfair advantage, Flibbly - anyone can run a school if they have the numbers to attend it. Casur, we do fund our own schools - we pay tax the same as everyone else. And nobledeebee there is more to Catholic education than RE class, or at least there should be. There should be religious practice in the school, religious imagery, the celebration of sacraments. Biology should be taught in a way that reflects the ethos of the school.

And then we come to the politics of the issue. Basically Robinson would like a portrait of the queen in every class room and the children singing every day:
I thank the goodness and the grace
Which on my birth has smiled,
And made me in these Christian days,
A happy English child.

A simple little way to see how balanced integrated schools are. How many of them are named after saints? None, to the best of my knowledge. They are indistinguishable from state schools.

I think Cardinal Brady should think more about the benefits to children of their being educated in an inclusive environment. I can understand why he would like taxpayers to continue to pay well over the odds for an education system that benefits religious groups; but community cohesion must be put before profit.

Cardinal Brady's judgement in doing the best thing for children has been seriously questioned before. How he acted 35 years ago when he was a teacher in the matter of two young boys is well documented and I need not repeat the details here. There is one piece of exceptional rubbish that he writes, however, on which I wish to pass comment:

"Without a vision the people will perish."

In my view it is Peter Robinson who has shown "vision" and no person will "perish" by a single state-funded system of education.

Newlach - "I need not repeat the details here". why mention it at all when it has no relevance to the issue. Are we to drag up Peter's dodgy past?

mccamleyc,

"There should be religious practice in the school, religious imagery, the celebration of sacraments."

At what age does a child get to choose which religion they want to follow? What happens if a child in a Catholic school decides that they no longer want to be the same religion as their parents? Isn't forcing the beliefs of the parents onto their child a form of brain washing? Why do we insist on labelling a child with the religion of their parents? We don't classify children by their parents political views, so why is religion allowed to be special case?

" Biology should be taught in a way that reflects the ethos of the school."

No. It. Shouldn't.

Science isn't like religion. You don't get to pick and choose which bits are right and which bits are wrong. You don't get to decide that something is scientificly invalid based upon your beliefs. Science is based on observable evidence, the concensus of those with qualifications in the field and on the theories developed from both of those criteria.

Shall we start teaching history according to the whims of the governing body? Shall we start teaching english language skills according to the regional slang and dialect of the area?

No. Science should be taught in way reflecting the opinion of those who do the science. Not self-serving priests desperate to keep the masses ignorant and in line.

Religious schools foster sectarianism, stereotypes, ignorance and propagate the worst that religion instils in humanity. The belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong, despite evidence to the contrary or the opinions of others.

If anywhere in the world should have a secular education system it's Northern Ireland.

Mccamley, if let's say by some chance of fate you lived somewhere else on these Isles, your experiences might have taught you to see faith based schooling from a perspective, outside of your own emotional and spiritual attachment.

You may then perhaps consider faith based schools are not the way forward for a cohesive society -as shown by the 700 unregulated madrassas in the UK (attended by approx. 100,000 children) and a further 114 state funded muslim faith based schools. You might then find yourself in agreement with this...

"In January 2008 the Commons Children, Schools and Families Select Committee raised concerns about the government's plans for expanding faith schooling.

The general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Dr. Mary Bousted, said "Unless there are crucial changes in the way many faith schools run we fear divisions in society will be exacerbated. In our increasingly multi-faith and secular society it is hard to see why our taxes should be used to fund schools which discriminate against children and potential staff because they are not of the same faith" "

MCC, you say,

There should be religious practice in the school, religious imagery, the celebration of sacraments. Biology should be taught in a way that reflects the ethos of the school.

and

And then we come to the politics of the issue. Basically Robinson would like a portrait of the queen in every class room and the children singing every day:
I thank the goodness and the grace
Which on my birth has smiled,
And made me in these Christian days,
A happy English child.

MCC, I think you have made the case why neither you or Robinson should be allowed near a school.

We teach our children the things we consider important. If you guys don't want your kids to go to Catholic school that's fine, but why do you want to deny me my human rights, identified in the European Convention, the EU Charter, the Irish Constitution?

Children get to make adult decisions when they are adults.

>>>Science should be taught in way reflecting the opinion of those who do the science.

"Opinion"??? Really?

Science always needs to be taught within an ethical framework. For example, do you really want your kids taught racial theory which denies the unity of the human race, because there are biologists who dispute this? Many schools use biology class to teach sex ed and you clearly do this within an ethical framework. You can't teach kids in RE that contraception is wrong and then the opposite in biology.

Some teachers union personnel don't like faith schools because they are secular humanists who are opposed to the concept. Shouldn't be teaching in faith schools then, should they.

Mcc,
Why can you not let them become adults before you try to indoctrinate them, if you think your truth is so self evident what have you to fear???

Mcc, simple question,

According to your beliefs should I as a homosexual be dead?

I agree with Peter Robinson and believe we show should have a fully intergrated education system. My understanding is that any intergrated schools that have been formed where from schools that where once state schools. As fas as I know there hasn't been a Catholic maintained school that has become intergrated. It's interesting that Sinn Fein and the Catholic Church that parents should have their choice of which school their child should go to, yet Ms Rowan has cut the funding to Prep schools and a very good prep school in East Belfast is closing because of lack of funding. These parents are being deprived of choice of education for their children. It seems that if you don't send your child to an Irish Language school or a Catholic Maintained school you have to end up with the crumbs. Is this a fair education system for all?

"Children get to make adult decisions when they are adults."

If a choice of religion is an 'adult decision', then why push it at children? Surely the best thing to do would be to treat all faiths (that's -all- faiths) equally until they can make that 'adult decision'. Or, alternatively, not teach them anything religious until they can make that 'adult decision'. You can't claim it's an adult decision and then expect them to follow their parents or teachers to church without complaint like good little boys and girls.

"Science always needs to be taught within an ethical framework. For example, do you really want your kids taught racial theory which denies the unity of the human race, because there are biologists who dispute this?"

Since when was this in the ciriculum for secondary schools? Science isn't about right and wrong, it's about how the world works and how it got here. It's about teaching the 'rules' of the universe and how things interact with each other. There are other subjects to teach about moral and ethical implications.

"Many schools use biology class to teach sex ed..."

Yes, because not including sex in biology would be like teaching chemistry without the chemicals, or maths without the addition sign.

"...and you clearly do this within an ethical framework."

No, you don't. Sex as taught in biology is very simple, A goes into B, wriggle around for a bit, tada! New baby. There's no ethics required in that. Relationships are ethical, and as such are taught in different classes.

"You can't teach kids in RE that contraception is wrong and then the opposite in biology."

If it's being taught correctly, RE should say that some religions view contraception is wrong, and others don't. RE lessons are not there to preach to the kids on your version of faith, and biology should be about how contraceptions work, not if they're right or wrong.

This clear confusion you're showing between subject matters is why school lesson plans need to be drawn up by experts in their field. Not any Tom, Rick or Harry who thinks they know what's best for their child.

Brady talks about diversity and the rights of parents. We are told that in a multicultural society such as ours, the diversity of our system is one of its strengths. This is disingenuous. The argument would only hold water if the children themselves experienced this diversity by living and working together with children of other backgrounds. Instead, the reverse is the case, with the vast majority of our children never meeting a peer from ‘the other religion’ or being given the opportunity to establish cross-community friendships.Ìý

Far from experiencing diversity, our children are subjected to a stifling conformity which reinforces their own religious upbringing and prejudices against ‘the other side’ and produces adults who largely adhere to the religious and political ideas of their parents.
This fact is reinforced by research indicating that integrated education actually works to breach the divide. A study by academics at Queen’s showed that it curbs entrenched attitudes and dilutes sectarianism. Pupils who attended an integrated school were more likely to reject traditional identities and allegiances than those who attended a segregated school.

Then we are informed that parental choice is a basic right which cannot be denied and that religiously separate schools are what most parents want. But opinion polls and surveys suggest a different story. The Millward Brown study in 2008 found that the overwhelming majority of people believe integrated education to be important in promoting a shared and better future for Northern Ireland.
Ìý
In any case, parental rights are not absolute. We would presumably not accept, for example, that parents have a right to ‘educate’ their children to commit suicide, as some religious cults in America, Japan and elsewhere have done.

The fact of the matter is that neither parents nor faith communities have a right to call upon the state to help them inculcate their own particular religious beliefs in their children, nor further their own projects, customs or values through their children.

Parents also have responsibilities, and it is surely a parent’s moral duty to make their child aware of values and opinions different from their own, rather than indoctrinate them into one belief system. In short, children have rights too, a truth which seems to be forgotten by the Catholic Church and other opponents of integrated education.Ìý

Some of these rights are outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a legally binding document. Article 13 affirms the right of the child to freedom of expression, including freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. Article 14 affirms that states must respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. And Article 29 states that the education of the child should be directed to preparation for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes and friendship among all peoples.

It is immoral, therefore, to have a child labelled as ‘Christian’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Protestant’, ‘Catholic’, ‘Humanist’, or whatever. The Evangelical Alliance agrees. “You are not a Christian simply because your parents are. Every child or adult has to make up their own minds about the reality of God", its website says. Indeed.Ìý

In a pluralist, multicultural and democratic society, the state has a duty to promote the tolerance and recognition of different values, religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs.Ìý

Similarly, a school in such a society has a moral duty to ‘educate’, which means to lead out, to widen a child’s horizons. It has a responsibility to inform the child of all the various major belief systems in the world so that the child is free to make its own choice.Ìý

Humanists are not opposed to teaching religion in school, but we think it should be confined to the classroom and be taught comparatively along with Humanist and other world views. Moral Education and Philosophy should be taught from both religious and secular perspectives.

A secular state does not promote religion, but nor does it promote atheism. It promotes neither, but instead gives children the tools to think for themselves and find their own truths in their own way.

If we want a better future for all, then we desperately need to integrate children of all classes and creeds in the same working environment. We can best do this in schools that are integrated, comprehensive and secular.

We need to grasp the nettle offered by Robinson. it's a no-brainer, Cardinal Brady.

If your born into a catholic family or a protestant family it doesn't make you a Christian.

The Bible teaches that it 'is' a choice ... not a birthright.

The problem with 'some' of the science that is taught in schools is that it is taught as fact rather than just theory.

RE is about beliefs...ethics and morals etc.

Dave...The Bible says..'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'

It doesn't just highlight homosexuals...the fact is that we have all sinned!

The good news is..that Jesus died for that sin on the cross...both yours and mine.

Agree with everything Natman has said on why science should be taught by scientists, not by religious apologists within a 'religious framework.' Science taught within a religious framework leads to Galileo being tortured.

I think the point here is that nobody is talking about taking anybody's rights away. Nobody's suggesting that the Catholic Church shouldn't be allowed to run schools. All that's being said is that the state should not fund religious practice. If the Church wants schools that are run under its authority, it should not be entitled to state assistance in its accomplishment of this end. The state has a duty to provide an education to its young citizens which will leave them knowledgeable enough to participate in and run society in the future, and that leaves them with the skills they need to contribute to the economy.

Why is it that the ethos of the Catholic Church being respected here? Above and beyond the ethos of the state, which provides nearly all of the funding for schools? The state should not be party to religious activity, and although the state is duty bound not to discriminate against people for their religious convictions, it has no duty to aid in the transfer of said beliefs to the next generation. Do that in your own home, do that in your church, but the funding model we have for education right now is one in which the sate provides the funds, so education should be seen as part of government, which should be non-denominational so as to be inclusive for all.

Dave at 11 - we don't leave children to their own devices in any other area of life - we teach them, make them eat good food, make them wash behind their ears, we innoculate them against disease, stop them running across the road. Why would we take something as fundamental as faith and treat it differently? When people propose this what they mean is make our children secular humanist atheists.

As for your question at 12, should you be dead? I'm not a doctor, should you? Do you have some disease or cancer or something?

Tullycarnet - schools close because of falling pupil numbers. their funding is based on capitation. Catholic schools were less likely to close because their numbers were rising.

Natman - I enjoy the way you always treat your own opinion as fact while blaming me for the same.

Separating sex from relationships is an ethical position. And that's why we need Catholic schools for Catholics. Why would we present ethics as a range of equally good choices? "Today children we'll look at anti-semitism. Some people think it's wrong to hate Jews; other people think it's perfectly acceptable. Now children you make up your own little minds".

I'm not going to teach my children it's wrong to do something in one class and then teach them how to do it in the other class.

And as ever the appeal to experts. Well I'm the primary educator of my children, not the State.

And then McClinton's "The fact of the matter is that neither parents nor faith communities have a right to call upon the state to help them inculcate their own particular religious beliefs in their children, nor further their own projects, customs or values through their children."

Unless of course you're a secular humanist when you want there to be only secular schools run by the State and espousing your secular values.

And of course the latest twist which I've noticed being used more and more in the press - the classic argument which has been used most recently to push for gay marriage. You take the status quo, the current position and you present it as an extreme view. So the current provision of Catholic schools, integrated schools and controlled schools is presented as one extreme. The other extreme is an avowedly atheist school system, explicitly teaching atheism a la Albania 1956. Then, like a rabbit from the hat you pluck the middle ground, the secular, neutral, present all views as equal school - the secular humanist State school as the answer. Not buying it.

"And as ever the appeal to experts. Well I'm the primary educator of my children, not the State."

Then I fear for your children.

Parents are not the best people to educate their children, and I say that as a parent myself. If you don't want your children to be taught by experts, then don't expect them to reach their full potential. Your arrogance to assume that you know best for your children, above that done by the experts (for whom you seem to hold some disdain), is telling.

"Separating sex from relationships is an ethical position"

Hardly. The biological mechanisms have no ethical side to them at all. Teaching kids -how- to have sex and what sex does is not ethical in any sense. Unless you think somehow not teaching kids about sex stops them having it?

mcc,
you miss my point, your bible states that there are a number of activities, most of which are perfectly normal and acceptable, for which the reader is told should be punishable by death. You then rely on an interpretation in another part of the book, an intepretation which varies from teaching to teaching, to fudge a mitigation of that so that you don't have to follow the punishment part but leave the activities, or some of them, as bad. A balancing act.

Do you think it is acceptable for muslim children to be taught the same thing without the mitigation and be taught that it is the state which frustrates the natural path of justice required by god. If you accept you have a right to teach christianity then you must accept that as valid to be taught as well.

The certainty of the statements on crime and punishment are easy for a child to understand, concepts of mercy and compassion are far more complex. When you indoctrinate kids you give them the certainty, then struggle with the mitigating concepts. The result is a child with a certainty that some people are deserved of punishment and a varying level of acceptance that there is some mitigation. This teaching has failed dramatically in Uganda where christians found it easy to teach the crime and punishment but either failed, or for some reason decided not to, get any message of mitigation across. The result is homophobia and a christian justification for going out and killing homosexuals.

This is the breeding ground of prejudice. It is questionable as to whether the crimes you believe are wrong should ever be taught to kids in the first place, you have a right to believe what you like but you do not have the right to teach other people to be prejudiced.

This why the state has to legislate to ensure that the prejudice created has consequences if expressed or acted on in society. It would be better if the prejudice was never taught in the first place.

If religious books never mentioned same sex acts would there be homophobia ? I know of no other source for it than religion.

You may think all teachers here are wonderful and that the message would never be blurred but I would suggest that the level of homophobia in society is testament to that fallacy.

A slightly different example, it was religion which was the source of stigma of children borne out of wedlock as reflection of the sin of their parents, it was rising secular society and common sense which had to remove that stigma.

This is simply an example of the dangerous nature of the teachings of your book and why it should be kept well away from people until they can understand the mitigating concepts and are less likely to internalise the prejudices.

The fact that it is a load of nonsense anyway is another reason but I do not have a problem with people believing nonsense as long as it is not harmful to others, your nonsense does not fit that bill.

On the subject of biology, sex and ethics. What should be taught is biology as biology, sex as sex and people should then be taught how to come to an ethical decision for themselves. You do not seem to want to teach ethics you want to impose your already formulated ethical position on others in much the same way as you want to impose your moral position on many other activities.

In some ways I think you would prefer cloning an adult copy of yourself rather than risk a child having a different opinion than you. It would also save you from all those moral pitfalls around sex.

Here is a thought, in the USA creationism and ID cannot be taught as science, maybe we should take the same approach here and have the teaching that same sex sex is an abomination proved in court. If you cannot prove it then it cannot be taught, can you prove it?

Religion's place within schools should be little more than a short class outlining the varied and sometimes extremely outlandish beliefs of the various cults spread across the Earth. Although increasingly irrelevent, some still cling to the old ways and I suppose they should be recognised to a degree. To have schools directly controlled and run by a particular sect should be abhorrent to all fair-minded people, whatever their position on 'god'. Children should be allowed to make up their own minds about religion when they reach an age were they can examine all the texts, science, interpretations and facts as and when they choose. The indoctrination of the young is a crime against us ALL and must be opposed. Robinson should have went further and demand that compulsory religious 'education' be removed from all schools. Not that there's a minute chance he will as the creationist leaning beliefs from within various unionist parties is as scary as the sky-fairy-made-flesh beliefs in the CCMS.
As an athiest in NI, it's been an interesting life. I am only too glad to say that the amount of non-believers coming out of the woodwork here in recent times warms the cockles. The whole contorversy over creationism at the Ulster Museum really seems to have kickstarted the athiest/agnostic movement in Ulster. I can only hope that the age old religious orientated problems we've faced can be faced down and removed by a new NI enlightenment

mcc:

You only read what you want to read. Teaching Philosophy or Moral Education includes the teaching of religion from a comparative perspective as a lifestance. It is neither atheist nor religious but OBJECTIVE.

Education is ABOUT children but, as the child abuse scandal seemed to indicate, the Catholic Church places children low down on its list of priorities. How can children experience diversity in a Catholic or a Protestant school where the overwhelming majority of other children are from the same religion? This is diversity? It's twisting the meaning of words.

As for parental rights, don't children have rights too? Why should they be treated as possessions of their parents, vessels to be filled with their parents' own ideas and prejudices? Aren't children human beings in their own right? Don't they have a fundamental right to freedom of thought? In fact, your Albania analogy is more like Northern Ireland at present than the secular alternative.

You are avoiding the issues. The fact of the matter is that diversity and parental rights are smokescreens designed to deflect from the iniquitous system of segregated education in Northern Ireland, a system which exists nowhere else in the advanced world.

In response to my original posting mccamleyc said that schools close because of falling numbers. This is partly true, but we have an education miniister in now who is determined into doing away with accademic selection and a whole lot of other measures which are aimed at limiting the choices that parents can make about where their chilren should be educated. If you don't want to send your child to a Catholic maintained school or an Irish Language school then this minister is making it hard for parents who want to send their children to state school or grammar school.In one sense I'm glad that we don't have any children growing up because from what I'm hearing from Protestant parents who have kids of school age isn't good. This minister I believe has secterianised education even more than it was.

Mccamely/Cardinal Brady and others that promote the segregation of another generation of Children do so at the expense of the wellbeing of individual children and the wellbeing of society as a whole. It's just power and control by the religious heirachy. Seeing that some communities won't except common law and policing- what's next, Catholic sharia law?

Blame for any future bloodshed that's borne out of promoting segregation of one half of society from the other can be laid squarely at the proponants of religion segregation

Bishop McKeown "welcomes" the debate but Cardinal Brady prefers to emphasise the "suspicion and mistrust" caused by Peter Robinson's enlightened comments. How many divisions has the Pope!

I found myself laughing when the bishop attempted to show himself as a defender of pluralism by supporting a segregated education system. Mervyn Storey made a good point about how in a society greatly divided by race segregation would be seen as indefensible, but Bishop McKeown wants a divisive state-funded education system to continue in N. Ireland.

I also found myself laughing at being in agreement with Mervyn Storey, who has caused some controversy in the past with his views on creationism!

How much longer will this primitive, primate species which is one step evolved from the chimpanzee, continue pushing science fiction of ancient goatherds on cultures?

Some have evolve, we know where the stories come from, celebrating the tales to further market share must cease.

Our only hope if for a future in which religion is marginalized, schools are secular and inclusive. Children can study the history of belief as they do war, however never again should any defenseless child be indoctrinated with irrational nonsense.

Market share loss is the root of this complaint by the CC.

Who gave Cardinal Brady permission to speak again? I thought he renounced offering opinion when he admitted to forcing two children to sign an oath of silence about their abuse by a priest who consequently went on to abuse many other innocent children.

Wasnt this the same man who, under huge pressure to do the right thing and resign, responded by saying that he was going to think really hard about resigning - then give his answer at Pentecost? Then decided not to bother resigninging after all - no doubt influenced by the HSp.

I know the media forgot about all of this and that the good Cardinal (counting on that) thinks that by making public statements about Catholic education he will get himself back to being a proper Cardinal again, but people like me wont forget - and neither will those children he forced to sign that obnoxious oath.

As regards MCC's argument for Catholic Biology (lol) I remember my first day at Catholic Biology class. My text book just fell open between pages 113 - 118. I noticed that everyone else's book was the same. It happened to be the chapter on human reproduction. I often wonder if that said something about Catholic schools.

A pal of mine who went to the Proddy school and who used the same text book told me that pages 113 - 118 at his school, were always stuck together.

Did Protestant Schools get more glue than us?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Romejellybeen, your're right. People need to be reminded constantly who these people are and what they've stood for in the past. The media is pretty poor at putting people/news items in context. It just goes to show, as LucyQ put it, some elements of the Catholic Church are only interested in market share and Brand reputation. From Cardinal Bradys actions in the past and his comments here, it shows that he'd be better as a company sales executive for Parmalat rather than dressed in that garb, trying to emulate Richelieu.

Ryan

'brand reputation' - hows this for the behaviour of a corporate business?

Tomorrow (31st Oct) there will be a gathering of victims of clergy abuse from all over the world, in St Peter's Square.

The Pope has ordered that sandwiches and hot drinks are to be distributed amongst the victims. He has ordered the Roman Curia to be in the Square and mingle with victims and listen to their horrific stories. The event will be concluded with Benedict saying Mass with the victims and promising that Cardinal Law will be sent back to America to face due process.

Just kidding.

The Vatican have banned any film footage of the event and have told victims that they will not be allowed into St Peter's Square in a group (although they admit that they cant stop them entering as individuals.)
God bless the Pope, the great, the good!

It's interesting. Chris, the Irish constitution has no force here. Thought you should know that. The slavering hysteria of Brady's reaction to Robinson's very reasonable proposals suggests that he knows the game is up. Let's establish the commission quickly and deal with this matter sooner rather than later. Abolish "faith schools" in favour of proper schools.