Separated religious teaching in schools, it might sound like the only good compromise but it doesn't work.

After the notion that the church could have a veto on each teacher in a primary school full of many different religions was rejected (that I blogged about previously) the debate moved on to how it will be actually thought in the new schools and the consensus among the religious and the mainstream was that children could be separated during the school day and guest clergy could teach each religion denominationally rather then teaching an overview of religion and ethics to all students at the same time.

David Quinn (Indo's religious hack) writes of three options

As to the second question, how should religion be taught, there are three basic options. One is to teach the children their own religion separately and during school hours. The second is to teach them a generic religion course, and the third is to teach them their separate religions outside of school time, but on the school premises.

And says he rejects the third and writes that the second is the only option...

So it looks like there is little practical alternative to teaching the various religions to the various sets of children during school hours.

Yet in the very same paper Educate Together CEO Paul Rowe refutes this and actually gives example of how when ET's started they were forced to do in-school separate religion teaching and he explains it just didn't work...

In some of our early schools we were compelled to adopt an approach similar to that being proposed in this pilot. It proved to be educationally unsound and led to difficult and complex negotiations that have resulted in the current Educate Together model in which children are not segregated according to religion within the statutory school day. In contrast, the VEC pilot as announced involves the compulsory registration and separation of children from the age of 4 according to their parents’ religion. Such practices have been shown to be socially divisive, unethical and educationally flawed. In a primary school class, they critically impinge on the socialisation of children and are counter-productive to the aim of preparing young people for a society in which religious discrimination is illegal.

He expands on the ad hoc setting up of here new VECs on the ET website and points out the DQ third option is the only workable option they found in practice.

A COI priest writes how segregated teaching of multiple religious would be chaos and describes the practical difficulties in his experience of it at a secondary VEC school...

Firstly, the pupils were often from different classes, so while in some cases the Protestant pupils would be receiving religious instruction at the same time as the Roman Catholics, in other cases they would be missing a maths, Irish or English class...

Although there are some differences between the teaching of secondary and primary we must keep in mind.

John Carr general secretay of INTO is personally in favour of non-denominational teaching but hasn't been clear enough enough on this issue as a representative of the teachers.

In this recent RTE interview he asked three times did he want religion though outside of school hours and he didn't proper answer. In 2007 he said...

Mr Carr said the INTO favoured a broad religious education programme for all schools on, perhaps, four days a week, with the various churches coming in on the fifth day to "add their own stamp", in accordance with parental wishes

In a another recent Irish Times article he fudges again

Separate religious teaching during school is just not practical and it comes back the issue that a more secular system suits most parents and is most social and cost efficient.

This post is collation of my and other thoughts and info from discussions on atheist.ie and on Boards.ie PS. It interesting to note that the Church of Ireland as a minority is happy to continue teaching COI primary schools kids religion outside of schools hours at Sunday schools etc.

Catholics called to Cudgel Secularists by Cardinal Brady

Cardinal calls on Catholics to fight against secularism. By Johnny O`Hanlon, in Rome.

NEWLY elected Cardinal, Archbishop Sean Brady, called on Catholics to "take up the cudgels against secularism" in Ireland when he informally addressed the guests at a reception at the Irish College in Rome on Monday evening.

Well if you want to talk aggressiveness how about this sort of talk from a bishop! :)

As I said before the bishops are conflating materialism with secularism again. They might be two noted trends of the modern era but I don't see the direct connection between them. It such a big subject I haven't managed to channel my anger at his ill-considered speeches to into a blog entry that would sum up the issue, it is admittedly hard to define secularisms place in society (without using words such as values), I have started to correct people when they use the word freedom when they mean capitalism but maybe secularism is a counterpart of capitalism although I personally would consider secularism as having more value to a society then capitalism.

Although heres an interesting counterpoint to my opinion on commercialism.

Bertie Ahern talked in the Dail about 'aggressive secularism'. Yet all I see is secularism 101, its this church which is aggressivly trying to keep its privileged position.

The bishops say the word secularism far more then they say materialism, although they are taking the word as secular meaning the secular and the profane rather then secularism as in creating society neutral to religion.

Here are some examples of recent comments from the bishops, where they compare secularists with...drug addicts,violence, killings, alcoholics, convicts, vain celebrities...

Being an Irish celebrity can-be-dangerous-warns-bishop Bishop of Limerick Donal Murray waffles.

Preaching in Christchurch Cathedral, Dr Neill reminded the congregation that it was not only the socially deprived who were vulnerable. "Those who have lost all sense of direction and meaning in life, in a society focused on wealth creation and instant gratification, are extremely vulnerable," he said.

"The drug culture that has recently come to public attention is indeed about addiction, but it is also about wealth, instant self-gratification and criminal activity including mindless violence and murder.

Unfortunately we have to depend on the Pope to actually name capitalism rather then just secularism as a threat. Pope Speech in Brazil For some reason the Bishop can't manage to say the word capitalism in a critical manner? The Pope Denounces Capitalism and Marxism

The headlines is Brady says Ireland's secular project has failed Welcoming economic growth in the Republic as "a fantastic and very welcome achievement", he warned of "becoming intoxicated with it" as there was "growing concern about evidence of a gradual breakdown in social cohesion". This arose from "an emphasis on the happiness of the individual, particularly of the individual as a consumer".

This evidence included a "dramatic increase in the levels of violent crime", with "increasing use of illegal drugs", "the phenomenon of gangland killings", and the fact that "our young people have some of the highest levels of alcohol addiction in Europe". The most tragic evidence was "the unprecedented levels of suicide, notably among the young".

There was clear evidence that "many people are getting tired of the emptiness and stress of a life built predominantly on secular and consumerist values".

He is suggesting secularism can't battle greed as well as catholicism can. But as always secularism isn't trying put itself in that position, I don't know what is. Innate commonsense, considered thought and mutual aid perhaps.

Archbishop: We're addicted to wealth and shallow celebrities

Irish Education: State should take its share of responsibility

Update Jan 3, 08
Schools will be billed for water but no clearer on funding
Two year delay with flat rate charge gov abdicates responsibility to LA's.

What do we pay our taxes for?

Stat-ist and water bills

Im loathe to write blog posts around articles by David Quinn but there have been a series of articles in the papers recently suggesting the someone, some body somewhere is calling for complete state takeover of schools, yet they never names who these people are.

No politicians and priests just parents.

When the question is framed as, Church or State, many people, especially those of a liberal or secular outlook, will answer "State" every time. Quite apart from their distaste for the Church, the idea that a religious organisation of any stripe should run so many of our schools offends their secular principles.

I commented, when secularists say the state should run schools, they mean state funded via tax, because secularist generally believe in free education via the tax system, taxing at various levels and spending it where its needed. We still think there should be local committees of parents and maybe one or two politicians and priest but not a majority of such. Secularist expect their income tax to cover opening of schools and to pay for the heating and lighting of that school. (He is right to highlight the issue of class, but its not reason not to reduce the catholic monopoly.)

But again in this fawning article about Cardinal Brady David Quinn repeats the falsehood about trying to reduce parental choice by getting the state to take its responsibility in education, when infact currently there is little choice.

Obviously there are too many denominational schools in this country. But reducing their number is not enough for our die-hard secularists who want them reduced to zero. They dream of a system entirely dominated by the State and in which parental choice counts for nothing.

People like him say that there is a constitutional right for parents to choose schools run by religions but with currently with 98% of schools church run the constitution is actually being broken by the current system giving little or no choice to parent to choose secular schools. He obviously hadn't read my comment on his previous article.

When the issue of water charges finally broke onto the front pages another series of articles was written in the never ending public argument between various papers columnists and even between columnist in the same paper. I don't like that Fintan O'Toole has become a columnist now as well but he is the only person writing about these issues consistently and summing up the whole situation. I wonder if F'OT is that aggresive secularist Bertie Ahern was talking about?

A lesson for Primary schools

Imagine, writes Fintan O'Toole , a country so poor that it has no national primary school system. The state doesn't set up schools for children, but leaves the task to parents and local groups.

Teachers and parents spend much of their time trying to collect money for basics like water and heat. We don't have to imagine this country, of course, because - except for the bit about being poor - we live in it. But we are so used to the absurd situation of primary education in Ireland that we forget how crazy it is that one of the most basic tasks of modern states is left to a ramshackle network of over 3,000 private institutions. Maybe we need the even greater absurdity of forcing parents to pay for the water used in the schools their children attend to shock us into realising that we can't go on like this.

Which induced another article attacking the strawman state-ist.

Now, as then, we are being told that the answer to all our problems is more -- much more -- state intervention, a total state takeover of our schools, in fact. The faith of some people in the State is simply touching.

He also suggest the local communities having to fund raise to pay basic bills is good thing as it bring the schools closer to the local community!!

Breda O'Brien wrote a similar article this weekend as well, Funding is core issue for schools, not patronage (reg req). Which it is in the short term, but this problem stems from state abdication of responsibility for education, which she highlights.

The Department of Education and Science acts as if the schools were completely private institutions when it suits it, and at the same time demands exacting educational standards as if they were completely State-run.

but then she says..,

It is suggested that dismantling this system and making the State directly responsible for all schools would solve the problems. This can only be described as a touching, if somewhat puzzling, faith in a state that has proved itself incapable of planning even water charges.

It is suggested. Suggested by who?

So again O'Brien doesn't say who it was that was calling for such a thing, the only call I've heard is for the state to fund the schools fully and for new types of schools with firm state, parental, community and some politicial ( and even some religious) involvement. But I disagree that patronage is not an issue, they are inextricable, its the root of the prob she describes. Her long opinion column then waffles on about, morals muslims French republicans holding back women and schools set up communities (for her read religious communities).

I haven't read are listened to all of the reports on this issue but I haven't seen or heard anyone suggesting this in regard to the water issue or funding in general, or during the recent discussions over new school 'patronage'. Fund the fecking schools!,thankfully both DQ and B'OB say this but also addressed there articles to these state-ist straw men.

Hanafin is still abdicating responsibility while pretending everything is okay or passing the buck and blaming everyone else.

Minister knew of school water crux.

Correspondence seen by the Irish Independent also shows that then-minister Dick Roche offered to pay for water conservation measures in schools to help reduce the bills in October 2006, but the Department of Education did not respond.

In the Dail Bertie Ahern admitted that even though delayed parents will end up paying for water charges and even with water conservation these bills will be in the thousands. RTE report on water. Still no free education.

So what are the principals and teachers and boards of management saying about school funding in relation to water charges...

Cllr Walter Lacey, who has been involved with schools as chairman of the board at Scoil Mhuire Gan Smal in Carlow for a number of years, said it was a well known fact that there was no income or business to be made from schools.

Schools vow to revolt on water charges

“Parents and teachers have had to organise fundraisers to foot the bills for running costs, refurbishments and repairs as it is.”

Principals claim water charges would be the ‘death-knell’ for rural schools
Schools turn to second minister in water row
Hundreds of schools now set-to-seek refunds
Water charges unfair to schools

Sean Cotteral,Director, Irish Primary Principals' Network writes to the Indo Scandal of school water charges

Schools neither manufacture nor sell goods or services for profit, nor register for VAT. Incredibly, schools are the latest soft targets for stealth taxes despite having to continuously fund raise to make up for systematic Government under-funding of day-to-day running costs.

Of course when right wing people talk of choice what they really mean is privatisation, so perhaps what David Quinn is really angling for is privatised schools like the City Academies in the UK where millionaire Evangelical Christians have been able to wow council with their money to build huge highly equipped while impose their religious beliefs on schools Most recently seen in the The New Fundamentalists C4 Dispatches program.

So the new style of patronage will be VEC's. I worry that the VECs will become our city academies when they start doing second level ones, VECs have in their mission statement specifically to produce students for trade and industry... like these city academies.

But Bock calls the Bishop on the hypocracy.

Mairaid traces Hanafins awful track record of grand false promises and refusal to recognise any problems in Irish education.

Leaving the Irish Catholic Church, its easier then you think!

2013. The formal defection process has been changed and is seemingly no longer allowed via canon law, but you can still write to the Bishop of the area you were baptised in and ask for the register of baptism in the Church to be amended to note your wish to leave the Catholic Church using the rules that comply with Section 6 of the Data Protection Acts, 1988 and 2003. As recommended by the Data Protection Commissioner. See this example.

Recent Examples


De facto defection from the catholic church, best you can get in Ireland for the time being


2013/2014
Two people who had some sucess when the church applied Canon 751 and also Canon 1364, Membership of AI enough to get baptismal record annotated.

New Count me Out Automates the form filling process, count yourself out of the church.
New. Leaflet Version. Spread the Good News
UPDATE: But it seems they will still claim you. See Below

I'm cribbing this info from two or three other sources, but I'm just trying to spread the good word you know.

From Little Saint on the GCN boards.

Its quite simple, It’s referred to as a "Defection by Formal Act", and once you mention that in your letter, he'll know exactly what you mean.you mail the archbishop of Dublin, address below, and tell him under Vatican II, you wish to exercise your right to defect.

You must commit a formal act of defection. This act must include three parts: A) an internal act of will; B) an external manifestation of that act; and C) communication of the fact in writing to your local Bishop

Reverend Dr Diarmuid Martin
Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland,
Archbishop's House,
Drumcondra,
Dublin 9.

You’ll need to provide some additional information like where you were baptised, your parents names, godparents names, and of course the date you were baptised (and if you don't have this, your date of birth will do)

You’ll get a letter back with some reasons why you shouldn’t do this unspeakable thing, such as not being able to get married in a church, yadda yadda. Within a few days, my amended baptism certificate was sent to me with “defection” written all over it, and that was that:- no longer a Catholic. I now have it hanging on my wall, it’s a smashing conversation piece.

So I happened to come across the link to GCN via postdarwin, posted it to atheist.ie and someone who does not suffer from procrastination like me immediately wrote to their bishop for the form letter for Defection and received back these.

the text of the defection by formal act reads...

DECLARATION OF DEFECTION FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
I___________________, do hereby give formal
notice of my defection from the Roman Catholic Church. I want it to be known that I no longer wish to be regarded as a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

I further declare that I am aware of the consequences of this act regarding the reception of the sacraments of the Church, including the sacraments of the Eucharist, marriage and the sick and also with regard to burial.

I undertake to make this decision known to my next of kin and to ensure that they are aware of these circumstances in the case of my being incapacitated.

I acknowledge that I make this declaration under solemn oath, being of sound mind and body, and in the presence of a witness who can testify as to the validity of this document.

Signed:_________ Address:_________
Witness:________ Address:_________
Date:___________

The cover letter reads

I enclose a Declaration of Defection from the Roman Catholic Church which I would ask you to sign and witness and returned to this office. I will then ensure that an annotation of this declaration is made in the baptismal register the relevant parish and diocese.

You will note the term annotation, it seems the church will not remove your name entirely from their records but will it be noted in the baptismal register with the words defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali, or “defection from the Catholic Church by a formal act

”See this very interesting case study Catholic Church baptismal records deletion request not upheld. from the website of the data protection office for an explanation.

...it is my understanding that the data could not be deleted from the Register as it is essential for the administration of Church affairs to maintain a register of all the people who have been baptised. Indeed it is of course a factual record of an event that happened. However the proposed noting of the register would more than comply with Section 6 of the Data Protection Acts, 1988 and 2003.

Although you also have a Right of rectification or erasure and blocking.

So to summarise you should be able to print out, sign and send that defection form letter straight to the bishop of the diocese you were baptised in with at least
your name,
date of baptism,
parish church of baptism,
your date of birth,
your parents names,
and the local baptism records will be changed and you will be officially not catholic anymore (as if you ever really were).

The example received a confirmation of her defection.

Sorry old webpages dying, see defection responses here countmeout.ie website via the Internet Archive.

There seems to be no release.

From AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA on the vatican website.
ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS

Extract
7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

With this news article confirming the actual view of a bishop on the issue.

Father Kloch explained, “It is necessary to emphasize that an apostate does not cease to be Christian.

A list of the 26 diocese of Ireland and their Bishops addresses.

Also read the discussion at the National Secular Societies UK website about whether you can stop being a Christian once you've been baptised and confirmed.

Check out atheist.ie for more discussion on this and similar topics.

Materialism is not secularism, Brady!

Before Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All-Ireland Sean Brady was criticising illusions while speaking ironically from Knock. He spoke in American at a plastic paddy festival and conflated materialism with secularism again, he's done this a number of times in the past year and its really pissing me off.

There was clear evidence that "many people are getting tired of the emptiness and stress of a life built predominantly on secular and consumerist values".

Brady says Ireland's secular project has failed reg required, version of the article/speech here.

This is a letter I wrote in response.

Materialism not secularism
I really object to how Mr Brady keeps conflating consumerism/materialism with secularism. It is an insult to all non-religious in Ireland. They might be the two noted trends of the modern era but I don't see the direct connection between them.

Consumerism is laziness, gluttony, conformity and pliableness. Is this secularism? To me secularism means thinking for ourselves and fully comprehending the outcome of our actions on others, it is a sign of Ireland's maturity that we increasingly do so rather then depend unquestionably on authority, His organisation is the prime example in Ireland of an authority having too much power over people and abusing its position, socially, politically and in relation to child abuse. He seems to pine for that era and wants to compete for influence with the mass media rather then see us more worldly aware.

By suggesting Northern Ireland should reduce it corporation tax to the same level as our own he goes against reports from CORI who question whether our low corporation tax shares the wealth fairly and provides us proper levels of social and public services. His concern for our emptiness and stress ignores that it is the relentless pace needed for the low tax Celtic Tiger which has made us live to work rather then work to live. He even suggested in his speech that financial institutions have social and moral authority?

To me the secular project is separation of church from state which some mistake as having as been complete, but with 90% of primary schools still run by the Catholic church an unconstitutional monopoly through lack of choice in education still exists.

Earlier in the year the Taoiseach warned against 'aggressive secularists' although he still hasn't come up with any examples of any but I think I can warn Mr Brady of influence from aggressive materialists like Mr Ahern.

I was quite hoping that the letter would get used, I rewrote it a couple of times, perhaps it was too long, although I see now that they did put in letters about the article arguing over whether the editors should have not used long title like archbishop in a headline :?

P.S. I don't get why the Irish Times insist that you should include your name and address with the letter for it to be printed in the paper. It doesn't add or detract from my point to have my name there or not. I'm sure it must have comeback on some people badly at some time.

check out atheist.ie

Bock is on first name/pet name terms with the Archbishop already. StoB suggests Brady shouldn't blame everything on religion (or lack of it), and points out the ills aren't that new. Paige H treats the speech with the respect it deserves That's Ireland points out the superstitions aren't that new or different to his, the only new thing I see is the tarot cards ability to advertise as entertainment while religions cannot yet.