HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

The School should be secular - that is, it should promote no opinion on religion or atheism in schools
 
We don't force Christians to teach science in their churches so it would be appreciated if they didn't bring their faith into our public schools.

The Divine Default. JJ Dyken.

 

Concerns

 

We must remember that the command to love God with all we have suggests that the godly society including schools needs to be religion all the time even implicitly.

 

Too much time may be given to teaching religion.

 

Preaching is not educating for each religion preaches contradictory things and there is no way to check religious claims.

 

Children who do not believe in a particular religion are in danger of being treated second-class or excluded altogether.

 

There is no intrinsic right to faith schools for faith formation can be done in other ways.

 

Religion that claims to be better than another religion is a problem.  Christianity claims to be the true faith.

 

Not all religious teachers are safe and some are extreme and bigoted or on the verge of becoming so.


What we need
 
Schools should not be allowed to preach the faith or any faith. Debating things is a way of teaching and learning. Schools could teach about religion through helping pupils to debate about it. The program should be delivered in an ethics or sociology class. This would be a good way of avoiding accidental indoctrination. If religion class is about teaching about religion but not teaching religion it still lends religion credibility it is not entitled to. It suggests it is something that maybe you should take seriously. The debate method would avoid making religion seem credible. Credibility opens the way the way for pupils to be brainwashed and radicalised at home.
 
The other question about teaching about religion is, "Who do you take as an authority on what the religion teaches and stands for?" If the class is about say Catholicism, then consider this. If it is true that the papacy was not started by God to teach his word and to govern then the pope has no authority over what you believe and do though he imagines he has. So you cannot really use the pope as a measure to decide what Catholics are to believe or what Catholicism is. He is not a true servant of the Church at all. Now what do you do? Do you turn to experts who are not speaking in the name of the Church but who may be stating the truth about what it stands for though it is on the opposite side of the fence about what Catholics say Catholicism is? The fact remains that if experts say that Mormonism is best called a fraud rather than a religion and the experts are right, then Mormonism's self-declaration that it is a religion does not matter one bit. It is a fraud not a religion. So you heed what the experts say Mormonism stands for not the Church. Classes about religion teach popes and prophets and sons of God as authorities on what the religion is. That is biased. The point I am trying to make that religion class or classes about religion are letting bias in favour of the religion being truly divinely inspired creep in in some fashion or to some degree. How can classes be more neutral? Is it possible?
 
What we aim to prove

 

 

We need to refute the common perception that if the state schools promote religion it is up to the state to make sure children have or can have an education that is free from religious or Christian indoctrination.  The problem with it is that a decent religion should respect children enough to suggest itself as an option for them but take care to avoid controlling the schools or the children or filtering information so that the religious "education" is too one-sided.  Religion should be telling the state to do something about it.  It just takes advantage.
 
Children have a right to attend pluralist and secular schools.
 
We are arguing against state funded faith schools. If religion makes schools of its own, let it and let it pay for them.
 
Secularists and atheists are accused of believing only what they understand. Understanding isn’t everything. But beliefs you understand ought to be valued more than ones you do not. Therefore they need to be given prime place in school against religions allegation that its doctrines come first.
 
The state must not fund the promotion of religion or religious doctrine in schools. It is okay to promote honesty but a school should not be telling children that priests can turn bread into Jesus and call that educating. The parents and the Church should have their own self-funded system for evangelising.
 
The state shall not make it legally obligatory for schools to deliver classes about - as opposed to promoting - religion either. It might be good if it does but it should not have to.
 
Schools are for helping parents in the education of their children. A school that does not cater for the children of non-religious parents is discriminating. It does not follow however that the school should assist parents in the religious "education" of their children.
 
Many think that the Church should create and have a say in faith schools as it subsidises them. In fact, in many countries such as the UK it does not.
 
All children should be able to access publicly-funded schools which have no religious ethos. A religious ethos means that the beliefs and attitudes of a particular religion permeate the school life and are not restricted to religion classes.
 
Secularism requires that children of every faith and none should be educated in the same school. To separate children from children of a different faith or none just because you want a school that teaches them your religion is to tell them plainly that other faiths are somehow dangerous. It is by luck if that does not result in serious sectarianism for it should.
 
Religion argues that faith in religion and God is personal but it is not private. That is its answer to those who demand that religious indoctrination be kept out of school.
 
What if the child does not want to be taught religion?
 
The child must not be taught religion. If the parents disagree that is their prerogative but they have no right to force religion on a child.
 
Religions to be covered in Religious Education
 
The state has no right to order that any particular religion be covered. Let the school in collaboration with the students and the parents make the decision.
 
Religion should not be promoted in public schools
 
Religion must not be taught in an evangelistic way in state schools. To teach children about religion is not the same as preaching religion to them and trying to make converts of them. Let there be an end to religion running state schools and using the taxpayer's money to enforce its ethos. It is wrong for the state to pay for religious education that has a view to promoting the religion. There is no need for religion to be taught in schools at all. Other ways to teach religion can be set up. The parents can do it.
 
If religion wants schools, let it fund them itself. State funding rightfully belongs only to schools that exist by the will of the state and schools that exist for an educational purpose only. Indoctrination of children is not educating them. We can all be indoctrinated but children are particularly vulnerable.
 
To encourage a child to believe what others say about right and wrong is to stop that child being her or his own person. It is taking advantage. Far wiser and more effective to help the child find her own answers. Anything else is demeaning the child.

Religious education is dishonest. Education in what is not verified is not education. And especially if the children are not informed that the religious doctrines they are taught are really just a matter of opinion. The Church has people getting paid to non-teach.
 
Time
 
If a religion says God comes first, it follows that the religion matters the most and should get the most time space. Religion must permeate the other classes as well were possible. For example, history should always include the history of Israel and Jesus for Christians. Biology should stay away from evolution. Geography should focus on Rome and the Holy Land.
 
If religion is nonsense, the child is wasting her time by learning it when she could be learning something else.
 
Teaching about religion without indoctrinating
 

Schools are not the only thing that teaches.  Sadly much of what passes for information about religion is loaded.  It is inadvertently teaching religious doctrine! The Church can’t ask scholars to accept it as a monotheistic religion. That is asking them to accept the mystery of the Trinity which to non-Christians is three Gods that we pretend are one.  The Church cannot ask us to accept that it is Christianity when Christ means a political warrior king appointed by God so Jesus was not a Christ of any sort never mind the Christ.  The Church cannot ask us to hold that the pope really is the xxx pope since Peter.  That is a controversial matter.  The Church cannot ask secularists to believe it loves sinners and hates sins when in fact it is people not sins that are the problem.

 

While it is okay for children to be taught about religion in the state schools, it is abusive for the schools to be used to indoctrinate them for at a young age they are so impressionable and prey to bad habits and piety can be a disease that can never be cured. It is against their right to liberty. The end result will be a kind of hypnosis not real faith. Faith faith develops and is not the result of brainwashing.
 
There is no liberty without correct information – just a false liberty that is really exploitation in disguise. It is different to teach children facts for facts are true and religion is just superstition, fraud, conjecture and blind faith.
 
Atheism or at least secularism that tells people to pray if they want to but not to allow their lives or thinking to be dictated to by any god or religion, however, should be spread in the public schools for it is right. Religion should not be for it is wrong and does a lot of harm and is an extra excuse for bigotry. School is for teaching facts. Classes must be available for those who want to study atheism and/or the case against religion in depth.
 
But surely even if atheism is true you don't want people accepting it because they were conditioned?
 
There are many different views within every religion and many different religions. For any group to run your school, results in that group making sure that your children hear only one side of the story. I mean, for example, that they are only told the positive things about Christianity and Jesus Christ. The other side is pushed aside and dishonestly hidden. The dubious arguments against Christianity might get a mention and are used to convey the impression that all arguments against it are flawed when the opposite is the case. No religion that controls schools then has any right to call itself honest. Schools are for instilling an honest grasp of and allegiance to facts so the use of schools to indoctrinate has got to stop and to be made illegal. If religion wants to run schools it should not be using them to propagate its faith. It should have Sunday Schools which are optional instead. Ideally, children should be able to go to a different Sunday school every week to learn about and from different religions instead of their parents’. The Church will protest that this makes out one religion to be as good as another. But that is not the point. The point is that when each individual has to decide for themselves what religion they are going to join they should have all the freedom and help they need to make an informed decision. What is the point of having the right religion if you do not freely choose it but are manipulated by the priests and society to join or stay in it?
 
How can religious education be fair? Should humanism always be on a religious education syllabus?
 
Humanism is not a system or religion. There is nothing stopping a beggar or a king or an atheist or a pope from getting some things right. Humanism is about accepting human wisdom wherever it is found. Humanism refuses to stop searching and keep learning. The syllabus does not need to mention humanism. All it needs to do is explore why some people think a religious doctrine or practice is beneficial and why some don't. Being left to make up your own mind is crucial.
 
State should not finance religious indoctrination
 
What is the point of the state financing and supporting religious schools when most of the pupils will grow up to fall away from religion? They will consider most of what they have learnt in religion to be nonsense. What should be taught, if anything, is why they should not steal and rape and take drugs. They should be taught psychology so that they can take care of their own needs.
 
The better a nation is in terms of medical care and providing for its people, the less religious the nation becomes. People feel the system protects them reasonably well so they don't feel a huge need for a protector God. Studies show that the more secular a nation becomes the happier it becomes.
 
Secularism helps to keep the nation reasonably happy. Allowing religious propaganda in schools is trying to undo the happiness that secularism brings. It is not right even though chances are that the children will grow out of the religious influence.
 
When one religion has rules and laws about morality and the next religion disagrees strongly with its standards, this gives people the feeling that religious morality is arbitrary and they resent anything that imposes it on them. That is no basis for good citizenship.
 
Religion could be taught but must be optional and non-dogmatic. It should be about different religions and their teachings but not taught with intent to convert.
 
Integrated schooling without religious indoctrination should be the norm.

 

Religion rides on the back of spiritual laziness

 

The problem of people using the knowledge they got but not developing it or thinking about it is a huge one. Religion thrives on this form of laziness. There is a degradation in living on knowledge drummed into you that you did not make your own by thinking, discovering, developing and communicating. Those who want schools to be reformed fear that atheists and humanists want an atheist or humanist ideology to take over the religious one. But the proper approach is for critical thinking and evaluation to take the place of indoctrination so that students can make their own informed choices. Religion hates this suggestion when it should prefer people to base their lives on information and evidence and careful thought instead of on faith. Religion cares about what you think not how you think and many other systems are just as bad. This has to stop. It shows religion does not truly respect its adherents for it treats them as, “Don’t learn how to think but come to us and we will look after you.” That is arrogant and patronising.  It is often tragic as well you look at the blood-stained pages of religious history.
 
Respecting the Tax-Payer?
 
We are told: "Most taxpayers in the country are Christians. Thus the state should fund Christian schools."
 
The Catholic hierarchy in Ireland claims that as most taxpayers are Catholics that the state has a duty to provide their children with an education that produces believing Catholic of them. This is actually a humanistic argument. It is an insult to the Catholic faith. It suggests that if most taxpayers are atheists who hate religion then the state is under obligation to ensure they have schools in which to spread their religion of vicious secularism.
 
Even if it is a religion's members who are paying taxes to run those schools, that does not prove that the taxes must be spent on promoting the religion. If we disagree, we have to ask ourselves do we expect the state to let itself by dictated to by a religion just because it is that religions followers who fund and pay taxes to the state? In any case, the members of the religion may not be aware of the sinister doctrines of the religion and so would not be making an informed choice if they wanted schools to indoctrinate. And most members would not want their child to become perfect believers in a religion that refuses to see the truth. They are more interested in the child belonging to a religious society than in the child letting the religion do the thinking for her or him. In other words, they want the benefits of the religion rather than the religion!
 
If religion wants religious schools, let it pay for them itself. Suppose most tax-payers in a nation are Catholic. That still does not suggest that the state should provide them with Catholic schools. It is like saying there should be Catholic doctors for the Catholic if the state pays for medical care. There is no need for religion to be taught in an evangelistic way in schools at all. Catholic parents can come to some other arrangement for the religious indoctrination of their children. Catholic schools that exclude children for not being baptised are discriminatory.
 
The Church might say that in a country like Ireland, the vast majority of the taxes are paid by Catholics thus it is only right that the vast majority of the schools must be dedicated to a Catholic ethos. Irish Catholics say they have the right to have their kids given instruction in Catholic doctrine at school for the schools are paid for with mainly Catholic taxes. This is asking for something based on their own rights. But if they should love God with all their hearts - as they say - then they should demand it for his rights not theirs.
 
There is an argument that the state should pay for indoctrinating schools because they turn out good citizens. That is hardly true for believers and unbelievers end up jail at the same rate. And the argument implies that as all religions are not the same that they want special treatment for the schools of some religions but not others.
 
The argument that Christian taxpayers proves that the state should fund Christian schools argument is often spouted by religious hypocrites. The Churches still demand state-funded schools in countries where Christianity is in the minority!
 
Does the Church want the state to fund only atheist schools in communist countries just because the taxpayers are mostly communists? What about Muslim extremist countries?
 
We would not like to think that when religion sets up hospitals these hospitals should be special treatment. So why do we buy what religion says about the schools?
 
Sectarianism is fostered by faith schools
 
Faith schools are often said to be the best schools. Usually this is said because most pupils go on to do well in life. Imagine a school is a Catholic one. Are the pupils working harder BECAUSE they are encouraged in an us versus them mentality? It is a fact that in a sectarian society, pupils of one religion's school will try to do well so that they can have a superior rank in society and surpass the pupils of other religions. Protestant schools in Ireland tried to encourage Protestants to become middle class and keep Catholics downtrod.
 
Faith schools tend to welcome children of a particular faith. They are given priority. Some schools tolerate children of other faiths. Others dismiss them. The excuse is that the school has an ethos to uphold. The ethos refers to the religious spirituality of the school. A Catholic school even when teaches maths does it as an act of honour to a God who has supposedly revealed himself in the Church. So though it does not look religious all the time it is in attitude. Despite the fact that schools can have an ethos that is not based on any specific religious understanding, the ethos is used as an excuse for discriminating against children and giving a fake welcome to children of other faiths or none. If some religions have more dangers and errors than another, it follows that their schools cannot be all equally good in terms of their religious ethos. There is subliminal indoctrination going on when the school has a religious ethos. A loyal Muslim cannot send her child to a Catholic school. Yet the school and the priest will lie to her that she can.
 
State schools must not be allowed to mistreat children by segregating children of one religion from the children of another during religion classes. That is not about building true cohesion.
 
Separating children in order to teach them different religious doctrines (we are not thinking so much of ethical teachings) is just saying, "Our religion is good which is why we teach it and not the other one. Therefore the other one is bad." Children see that as saying the other children are bad.
 
It is worse when each religion has a state school from which it excludes members of other faiths. That is giving the message: It's bad for you to associate with them. Even though you could all be put in one school - and each religion can have religion classes of its own just for its own members - it is not right that you should be in the same school as them.
 
If you claim that the religious education is not about indoctrinating but putting forward the religion for the consideration of the children, it remains true you are treating the other faith as bad.
 
The role religion plays in blocking cohesion between different religious communities must be acknowledged. For example, the Catholics will frown on the person making a new religion though he or she has inadequate reasons for believing in her or his own. Such a Catholic would be asked to leave a Catholic school.
 
If children learn sectarianism at home, the segregation at school will only be taken as evidence that what they have learned is right.
 
Value free education?
 
The Church says there is no such thing as a value-neutral education. True. The Church knows that students need to see the value of hard and honest work. There is no need to go further than that. What has religion as such got to do with it?
 
It is impossible to deliver an education that does not represent values. These values may be religious or secular. Schools teaching secular values are neutral on the religion question and therefore promote greater unity in the state. We know that children at school must be taught how to think not what to think. Secularists and religious alike agree that children must be helped develop an honest character so that they will not steal or hurt others by lies. We can pass on values without religion.
 
Religious people when they do real good, are living their human values. They pretend that these are religious values.
 
To teach a child philosophy that helps the child form healthy relationships and integrate well into society and respect the law is far better than teaching a child religion. Philosophy is not about instilling dogma but about helping people to realise things. Philosophy is really about reminding us about what we can know and what we don't know. Our system is philosophy not dogma.
 
You cannot let your child be manipulated by religion even for a peaceful life. Its the child that matters and not just a peaceful life. The child will know that he or she is not being respected and one that is brought up right will not consent to being used.
 
Religion makes morality too strict. If you bite your nails in front of other people you are doing wrong against them and disgusting them. But if you are on your own you can do this without censure. Say God exists. He will not approve of your wrongs which makes wrong far more wrong. In addition to hurting a person you have hurt him too. Religion makes morality tighter. Just be ordinary. You don't need a tighter morality. It is bad enough to worry about people and doing right by them than to worry about God as well! That God wants to be worried about indicates that he is strict. Don't forget that a morality with too many rules is not a morality at all.
 
Is there a right to have Faith Schools funded by the State?
 
Priests tell parents that they have the right to demand religious run schools that indoctrinate their children. This is rubbish. Even if children have a right to a religious education, it does not follow that this should take place in schools. There is no reason why children can’t be given a totally secular education and go to Sunday school or something.
 
The priests see themselves as parents of the souls - they supposedly remove sins and open Heaven to the children. They should be honest and say its their own rights over the spiritual children they have fathered they are worried about. But in a world that scorns the undiluted Christian faith they do not dare.
 
The priests are trying to manipulate the parents so that the Church will have the opportunity to inflict its faith on the children.
 
The Vatican stated in 2009 that teaching children about religion in a neutral way was a violation of the rights of children. It whined that this led to relativism, confusion and violated the children’s right to be taught which religion was true - the Roman Catholic faith, surprise, surprise! The Vatican actually does believe religion should be taught in a non-evangelistic way - it considers Catholicism to be the only exception. And the Vatican claims to be trying to love God with all its heart and mind which clearly shows that the rights of children are not its true concern. It doesn't want to moan that the neutral teaching of religion is against God's rights for it knows nobody really cares.

If Catholics are given the right to use schools to promote their religion, dangerous religions such as scientology and Islam will expect to do the same. Catholics insisting on the right to indoctrinate children are simply showing no concern for the children.
 
Faith Schools - Indoctrination Factories?
 
Religion should not be taught to children in a way that seeks an unfair advantage.
 
Religion cannot force others to listen to its message except through the school system. Even parents cannot force a child to hear the gospel even if they try.
 
Faith schools lead to problems. Pentecostal faith schools damage children by making them believe God the Holy Spirit speaks through them and makes them speak in unknown languages. It urges that responsibility be handed over to God instead of yourself. Scientology schools will teach them that a dose of science fiction is true. Rastafarian Schools promote the taking of cannabis as a holy rite. Islamist Extremist schools will urge pupils to hate and to murder "outsiders".

Most Catholics today would agree, despite Church teaching, that faith in God and in the Church is only opinion not knowledge. Those that are consistent will see that schools are about imparting knowledge so it would be inappropriate for schools to be in any way religious.
 
Should religiously funded schools be forced to employ people against their ethos?
 
A teacher of religion can be secretly an Atheist. There is no reason to think that that person necessarily has to do things or say things that undermine the ethos.
 
Teachers and principals have been fired because they were living in a relationship against the rules of the Church eg a cohabiting couple. It is hard to reconcile this with the Church teaching that, "We are all sinners but we must urge others not to sin". The sinner who teaches in a Catholic school is not urging the pupils to sin merely by his showing bad example. It is up to each individual to have the sense not to do things just because other people do them.
 
Are faith schools better?
 
Some studies show that faith schools are better than non-religious schools.
 
But these studies cannot speak about all faith schools and all non-religious schools. It is hard to believe that a Mormon or Seventh-Day Adventist school which opposes science and truth could really be a good school. So what faith are we talking about? It is dishonest for people to say faith schools are the best when they actually mean say Catholic schools or Presbyterian schools.
 
The studies do not consider other variables. Faith schools might seem to be better than non-religious schools if the believers have more money and more support than the non-believers. It is money not faith that is making them better.
 
If faith schools are ever better than secular schools, the reason is not because they are faith schools. Being a faith school in itself does not indicate that it must be necessarily better. Even in faith schools, going to classes intended to put the faith into the child to be optional for the child. Religion cannot force people to listen to its message except through controlling schools - bear that in mind.
 
Many faith schools teach a watery form of religion that is pretty close to secularism. These schools are really almost faith schools in name only.
 
Faith schools shouldn't be better than secular schools. If they are, is it because the teachers and parent committees are too aware of the flaws of the faith school system and are over-compensating in other areas? If you run a school that wastes time teaching superstition you may feel that you should maximise the effectiveness of teaching other subjects to make up for this.
 
Faith schools promote superstition and by separating children of one faith from another you are tacitly endorsing sectarianism and fear and division. If faith schools exceed secular schools then this is in spite of their inherent badness and not because of it. Faith schools separate children according to a religious label from other children bearing a different one thus implying, "This school is good because we are us and we are not them. We are holy and have the best religion. That is why we need a school with our religion's ethos."
 
Can a secular nation judge what a faith school is?
 
The state that recognises a school as a state school is saying the religion running it is really a religion.
 
Secularism may struggle to learn where religion begins and where religion ends. Yet it seems to many that it may need to try and know in order to take care that religion does not get privileges that non-religion doesn't have. Many argue that the state judging what is a religion and what isn't, opens the door for religious people to get favourable treatment under the law if the state regards them as comprising a real religion. The state assessing what is a religion will drag the state into theology and superstition. When members of one faith are recognised as a religion by the state and members of another are not, that is unfair and a violation of secularism. This principle forbids faith schools.
 
School is for teaching facts not faith and certainly not religious faith
 
School is for teaching established facts. Religion does not depend on established facts. It is not interested in scientific verification. Therefore religion should not be taught in school. Science comes first. Science stresses experimentation and questioning and getting the facts while religion opposes this approach though it pretends it does not. Science will help us not airy fairy tales. If you want to teach something in a school you should be able to prove its truth.
 
Even if the Virgin Mary appeared to you right now and said the Roman Catholic Church was the true Church you could not take her word for it for it might be a demon instead. Even the Church says that most revelations said to be from Heaven are dubious. What you would have to do first is make sure that the Catholic Church is the only right religion and not only that but the best. But, that is impossible for all religions make the same claim and sound convincing when you hear their side. To claim to be right in religion is sheer arrogance and wilful blindness. What is happening is the religionists make assumptions and they bend everything to fit them which is a barrier to understanding and sincere respect for other people.
 
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
 
“If the law starts forbidding religion to recruit children in school and through school then the fundamentalists will get stronger in power for they will gain more followers who fear that the secular world is trying to phase religious faith out.”
 
The fundamentalists themselves often are too cowardly to go out and fight for their beliefs. It is only a vocal minority that do the ranting and the interfering with politics. If we place enough temptation in the way of the fundamentalist, the fundamentalist will soften up.
 
The state should provide education against fundamentalist propaganda.
 
The argument if correct proves that moderate religion turns extremist when it meets suppression of any kind. The only answer would be to keep religion out of schools and work out a plan for handling or preventing the turning to extremism. Schools might have to debunk fundamentalism.
 
It is odd that Pope Francis who encourages fear of the Devil and sees his work everywhere is not classed as a fundamentalist. A person can be fundamentalist in one thing but not another. Too often people are called fundamentalist in an effort to discredit them. Is it really up to the state to decide who is a religious fundamentalist? No that is a religious matter.
 
“Parents have the obligation to raise their children according to their own religious faith.”
 
They do not. At best they might have the right to decide but there is no obligation.
 
“Parents have the right to raise their children according to their own religious faith.”
 
It depends. Do parents have the right to teach their children that the Battle of Hastings never happened and was a lie? No. Yet religion claims the right to put belief before fact in history and science. There is no need to raise children in your belief and when rights depend on needs the parents cannot have the right. A parent just needs to make suggestions and show by good example what the right thing to do is.
 
Another problem is this. Faith schools lead to segregation and sectarianism. If these schools vanish, faith will be taught in the home. This would seem to be even worse than teachers promoting the faith because the parents will often teach the faith poorly or in a bigoted way. This will have its dangers. People need to make up their own minds regarding this matter.
 
"No country has the right to ban children being raised as members of a religion".
 
Every country has the right to take steps that at least don't encourage religion or its propagation. Indeed, it is a nation's duty to be neutral.
 
And the notion that a child of six or seven is a Muslim or a Catholic is absurd. It is a lie and dehumanises. Labels dehumanise. It is bad enough to do that to an adult but a child?
 
CONCLUSION

Religion must not be taught in a recruiting or indoctrinating fashion in schools funded by the state.

Religious indoctrination of children is child-abuse even when the indoctrination seems on the face of it to be pretty harmless. When a child is indoctrinated to accept as true a religion that says her or his parents will go to Hell if they die unrepentant for cohabiting then that is a clear proof that the child is being abused. Nobody has the right to do that to a child and criminal proceedings must be considered against the clergy whose teachings are responsible.

APPENDIX

Paul Pearsall in The Last Self-Help Book You will ever Need writes that "more than three hundred states have written more than 170 statutes that codify the promotion of self-esteem".

Self-esteem is based on the recognition that rather than loving your neighbour as yourself you must love yourself and then you will be able to love your neighbour. Love your neighbour as yourself assumes that you love yourself but it does not command self-love. It commands love of neighbour. It is other-centred. The doctrine that we must esteem God more than ourselves is decisively rejected.

The statutes typically demand that self-esteem be facilitated in schools and educational establishments. Thus it makes no sense for schools to be Christian or Jewish or Islamic. It is against the law for they are about God not self-esteem.

 

APPENDIX

 

ISSU is a student body that is active in protecting student's rights in secondary schools in Ireland.  In 2018 it asked schools not to allow anti-abortion propaganda in the run-up to the abortion referendum.

 

I wrote:

 

While ISSU is right that schools should be ideology free it makes no sense for the school to allow religion classes. Religion is not education for how can it be education when one school says God wrote the Koran and another one says he didn't but became Jesus? Organised religion is more political than it lets on and as part of the cultural fabric it will get a direct and indirect influence on the workings of the state. How is letting the Catholic Church which claims abortion is murder and that God forbids it have a say in the school and teach in it anything like neutral? Some people will vote against human rights just because they are told God says they must. Concerned about the pro-life videos shown in school? I'd be as concerned for how Jesus and the Church (like it or not) represent the "right" to malign women who avail of abortion treatment and their doctors who end the pregnancy as murders and who pretend the child to be is a murder victim brutally slaughtered. That is religious hate speech and needs to be flushed out of the schools. Some hate speech is passive aggressive and that is usually the kind the Church engages in with its desire to believe that those who refuse to repent of abortion will be punished forever at death. A faith that tolerates protests outside abortion clinics and harasses those availing of abortion healthcare should not be allowed in any school nor should its pope be invited to this country. There is no control over what that man might say and leave thousands of women who exercised their right to abortion wounded and devastated by his "abortion is murder" slander.