04.15.07
Kids defeat opt-out from God
Note: This article appeared in the ST without the Borg reference, on the basis that lots of people mightn’t know anything about the Borg. But somehow I think the readers of this blog will gettit.
lIf you don’t watch Star Trek, The Next Generation, you might not be familiar with The Borg : the half living, half machine aliens with one sinister mission : to turn everyone else into Borg. Justly confident of victory, they inform prospective victims “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated”. I’ve attended a few christenings recently where this catchphrase is jokingly directed at the hosts. Why the hilarity? Well the christenings are getting a bit odd.
Instead of the usual babes in arms, the subjects of the baptism are perfectly articulate children capable of personally rejecting Satan and all his works. As they solemnly participate in the ceremony, their atheist parents are torn between pride and resentment. When the children were babies the hints of hopeful grandparents had been quietly ignored. Having examined their consciences and discussed the matter seriously with spouses and peers, they decided they had no wish to present their babies for induction into a church which they had long abandoned. Hypocrisy thrown off, they congratulated each other and moved on. Or so they thought. Now they find themselves standing on an altar, lighting candles and taking vows and photographs. Why now?
Because their children went to school and met The Borg. If you live in certain urban areas there might be an opportunity to send your children to a non-denominational school. But for most people, especially in rural areas, there is one primary school which is owned and managed by the Catholic Church. Off go your little liberal darlings and back come the questions about God and demands for a First Holy Communion. Suddenly the decision you made five years ago is starting to get a bit complicated. Children usually have one burning wish : to be like all the other children. If it’s the right brand of runners or the right brand of religion : whatever the other kids have, they want it too. Catholicism offers a fancy white dress for the girls, a day out for boys and girls and the prospect of unsolicited cash donations. It’s an excellent USP and there’s no compelling reason for a 6 year old to opt out. Explaining that you’d really much prefer if they learned Buddhist Dharma wisdom rather than the Ten Commandments won’t really cut it.
Next thing you know, you’re cosying up to the local priest looking for a free Sunday so the assimilation can begin.
Unfortunately it doesn’t end there. Catholicism operates on the same marketing principal as McDonalds. Get the kids and then you get the parents. Once the baptismal certificate has been sent, the note comes home for a parents’ meeting to discuss the First Communion arrangements. This is where the orders are issued: for a child to be eligible for their communion, they must present themselves at mass every Sunday for the school year. You thought the days of going to Mass to please your parents were gone. Now you have to go to Mass to please your children. It’s hardly conducive to the development of spirituality, is it? One mother I know looks on the bright side and cheerfully brings her children along every Sunday. They’ve learned how to sit still for forty minutes and she appreciates the peace. Faith appears to be completely irrelevant to the whole exercise.
It’s only going to get worse by the way. As we heard last week, in some densely populated areas, the management want to see the baptismal certificate before the child even starts school. It’s turned into a perversion of the old Groucho Marx line about not wanting to join a club that would have you as a member. The Catholic Church seems determined to recruit those that haven’t the slightest interest in membership. Why would the church want people who clearly don’t believe in God to go to Mass every week?
I want to make clear that I don’t have a chip on my shoulder about the Catholic church. I know all the terrible things that were done in its name from child abuse that was covered up to the oppression of women to the general obsession with sin and guilt. On institutional and theological matters, I have opted out. That doesn’t prevent me from appreciating the beneficial effects of the pastoral work carried out by good priests and the comfort that faith brings to those who possess it. I am happy to provide financial support to the parish so those who need a priest won’t be without one. In any event, if I or any member of my family drops dead in the morning, a funeral will be held in the church and prayers will be said over us. It’s only fair to pay a retainer in the meantime for those services we want performed at the end.
In our own parish we have two excellent priests. The more elderly of them is an obviously holy and simple man who would inspire anyone to goodness. The younger is a fantastic worker, popular with everyone and whose management of our local schools means there will be a place for all pupils as our population grows. But that’s not the point. The point is that religion has no place in a school. Religion should be a matter of choice and that choice shouldn’t be nullified by a system in which education and religion are seamlessly presented in the state system. If you want your child to take Communion send them to a Sunday school.
Theoretically, any parent can tell the school that they don’t want their child to take Communion and remove them from the religion class. But what parent is going to make their child an oddity? It’s easier to give in gracefully and hope that the catechism-lite that seems to be taught now will leave this generation slightly better adjusted than the last.
Of course, the system suits the state enormously. For a hundred years the churches have taken on the responsibility of schools and hospitals. We got the hospitals back, but there isn’t a hope of getting the schools. Just think how much the state would have to pay to buy them all and that would only be the start of it. As we’ve discovered in recent weeks, the State relishes its lack of responsibility to manage primary schools. Children who were physically or sexually abused in primary schools have been warned by the Chief State Solicitors office not to sue the Department of Education for compensation or they will be pursued for costs. Victims of abuse must instead sue the Board of Management at the specific school. The only role the state will acknowledge is that they will pay for a certain number of teachers in the school and pay something towards the costs of building and extending new schools provided the locals cough up the balance.
We are left with a choice: do you pay extra taxes to help the state run the schools, or do you pay at the Annual Draw so the principal can buy new equipment for the class rooms. Or do you pay with your soul when you light candles and promise to love a God you don’t believe exists?
Frank said,
April 15, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Agree with the general points in your article – however, when you say “We got the hospitals back” that is not yet completely true.
Sure, some of the new private hospitals are completely secular, but you will find that many (if not most) of the long established ones operate under a Catholic (or occasionally COI) code of ethics. Similarly, they will have a religious board of management (or something akin to that) just like schools.
In fact, the only places, these days, I come across the routine use of saint’s names (for wards), religious statues and the like are during my visits to people in hospitals. Not being a churchgoer, it was a bit of a surprise to me to see how religious they still were – these of course are our ‘public’ hospitals.
Lorenzo said,
April 16, 2007 at 8:17 am
We experienced the exact same dilemma, but decided to give in early and baptise while the child was still utterly defenseless and unknowing. Blogged about it here.
Late at night I justify it by telling myself we’re creating an infant sleeper cell that will undermine the Borg from within (“Ask your teacher where Limbo went”).
Stephen Neill said,
April 16, 2007 at 10:19 am
Sarah : Speaking as an assimilator from the Borg (C of I midlands division)
I am broadly in agreement with you. The hypocrisy involved in this charade is neither good for the children, their parents, the Church or the clergy of all denominations who administer these rites on such a mutually dishonest basis. I have had similar situations in my own role as chairperson of our school board and as a parish clergyman. It’s not a situation peculiar to Roman Catholicism. It’s a real ‘elephant in the room’ issue and few are brave enough to call it.
You are quite right that religious education does not belong in the school environment and to make religious affiliation a criterion for admission in a state funded school is nonsense. One senses mind you that with the increasing diversity of faith and ethnicity in our country (which I welcome) that the current denominational education dominance in education will gradually crumble. Multi-faith issues will make our inter-denominational squabbles appear insignificant.
It is of course pure hypocrisy to ask teachers to teach a course with a devotional element if they are not themselves ‘believers’. It is tantamount to abuse of the teacher, and to the kids it will be as plain as day. They can see hypocrisy a mile off! Sadly as we get older we get less sensitive to it and more tolerant! The place for religious teaching is either the home or the Church/Sunday school. From my experience in the US this works well and even the adults go to Sunday School. Parents and the churches are passing the buck on this one in expecting teachers to ‘do the religion thing’ on top of their other and growing responsibilities. It’s the same when it comes to discipline. Teachers get the blame for not sorting the kids out when what is really needed is proper parenting.
You mention the Church as a club and I think there you have made the most profound point of all. Jesus NEVER intended to start an exclusive club : Jesus espoused “The Way” and asked people to come on a journey with him. By nature of a journey it is open ended : it’s not static and closed like a club : it moves, it progresses and it encounters people and situations along the way : It deals with mystery and its not afraid to ask questions and a lot of the time the answers to those questions will be more questions. Jesus didn’t seek to tie people down and put them into boxes : he sought to liberate them and set them free. It’s not about information but it’s about community and that is something that cannot be rammed down a child’s throat (nor should it be). I blogged on this theme a couple of days ago if you want to read more.
See this post: Velvet Elvis and the rehabilitation of doubting Thomas
But : few questions:
Why Buddhism (which incidentally I have read quite a bit on and find it very helpful) and not Christianity? You seem to be undoing your own argument or perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
Why will you have a church funeral if you don’t believe? Is it for the sake of the family or the need for ritual : just curious?
Re the hospitals : I share your frustration with religious interference in issues which ultimately are the concern of the patient and the doctor and nobody else unless the laws of the State are being broken. But I wonder can we really trust the increasingly incompetent HSE if there is nobody outside the organs of the state to challenge them. I just cite one example: The National Children’s Hospital and its proposed association with the Mater which is subject to the veto of an external ethical committee. In this case the C of I through Tallaght Hospital is fighting what may well be a loosing battle against such a constraint on children’s medicine
brian t said,
April 16, 2007 at 11:09 am
Good article, though I do have to wonder about the idea of going back to the Church for e.g. weddings and funeral. OK, I won’t be fussed at my funeral, since it’s an occasion for the living, but if my wishes are of any value there wil be no clergy involved.
But as for weddings… I could never get married in a Church, for the simple reason that I imagine my wedding as an occasion for 100% honesty and integrity. How could I stand next to the person I plan to spend my life with, and lie?
Same for baptisms – doesn’t the ceremony include a promise, by the parents, to bring the child up Catholic? There’s even an “Enforcer”, a.k.a. The Godfather, to do that job in case anything happens to the parents. As you say – get ‘em while they’re young..!
b said,
April 16, 2007 at 1:08 pm
We are just uppity monkeys.
Religion is an effort to soften the realization that when we die thats it. No refund.
If religion was so important then we wouldn’t have to hoodwink children into joining a club that they can never leave.
Leon said,
April 16, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Once they’ve worn the white dress they’re about as keen on mass as Ian Paisley.
Andrew said,
April 16, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Hope I’m not turning into John Waters, but…. schools can never be value-neutral. Philip Jackson’s concept of the ‘hidden curriculum’ argues that schools transmit attitudes, mores, values, at the same time as they teach geography or French. No contemporary media frenzy over alcohol abuse, boy racers, teen pregnancies etc is complete without someone suggesting that schools are the appropriate places to tackle these issues. Ironically, at the same time as schools are being urged to leave religious instruction to parents, they are being asked to assume more and more responsibility for health and relationship education, driving instruction, cookery classes, you name it.
There’s an assumption behind many of these demands that the function of schools is to satisfy the requirements of the pupils’ parents – not so surprising since they’re the ones who vote and the culture of consumerism is as pervasive in education as anywhere else. In fact, the schools that reject religious ethos are as guilty of transmitting adult ideologies as the most rigorously Jesuit academy ever was, only nowadays the ideology du jour is secularism blended with the noble ethos of getting-enough-points-to-drive-the-biggest-car-possible.
So, a couple of modest proposals:
Maybe the Churches at least have the virtue of openness: they are mad keen to indoctrinate children, because their concern is the souls of those children, not the sensitivities of their parents.
Let’s leave teachers to teach geography and German and take responsibility, as parents, to show children how to cook, drive, drink and have sex (or not).
Actually, I have nothing to say in favour of Christian indoctrination except that it’s no worse than any other kind. Would I prefer my eighteen-year-olds to be blinded by the dogma of Christianity or by the dogma of competitiveness/consumerism? At least the former acknowledges it is a dogma.
Tom said,
April 17, 2007 at 9:16 am
“As we heard last week, in some densely populated areas, the management want to see the baptismal certificate before the child even starts school.”
Policy idea for Fine Gael – make discrimination on the grounds of religion illegal.
Sarah said,
April 17, 2007 at 9:45 am
I’m not against religion. I just think that the incorporation of religious education into the normal school curriculum makes it very difficult for aetheist parents to opt out. That means that you get children ostensibly being educated about religion, but at home, there is no interest whatso ever, and no FAITH! Doesn’t that matter to the established religions? Why would they want people who clearly don’t believe to be involved? Its not just silly, its tragic.
On Buddhism, well, it was just an example of an alternative system which parents might use at home. Not that a christian can’t be a Buddhist too.
On hospitals, I don’t blame the CofI one bit for wanting a look in. The hospitals still have an ethos according to their original founding but say, the NEHB getting Drogheda was crucial to getting rid of Neary.
On the funeral, bit of hypocrisy, cowardice and practicality thrown in there. I think ritual is important, especially for those grieving. I want the official goodbye
And anyway, what else would they do with me? They have the church and the graveyard and the expertise. No point screwing with that. And who knows, maybe I’ll suddenly find faith on my death bed! The most common place to find it I think 
Blogh an Seanchai » Educational Changes in the Talibanana Republic said,
April 17, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[...] Link: Kids Defeat Opt-Out from God [...]
An Seanchai said,
April 17, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I once heard Eamonn Dunphy say that hypocrisy was necessary to grease the wheels of society? If you want your kids to attend a mainstream school — the village school, the only school — then you have to knuckle under on baptism.
According to TJ McIntyre it’s already unconstitutional to exclude children because of their parent’s religious convictions, or lack thereof. But you still have people like Bishop Michael Smith who want the state to pay for schools that the Catholic church controls. They get their way because so many parents vaguely Catholic in sentiment are happy to leave religious instruction up to teachers. And they tell atheist parents “why don’t you start your own school.” Well, why don’t they put the fire brigade into church hands and then tell the atheists to start their own fire brigade?
Section 42.4 of Bunreacht na hEireann: “The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.”
http://anseanchai.com/blog/2007/04/12/educational-changes-in-the-talibanana-republic/
Stephen Neill said,
April 17, 2007 at 5:22 pm
>Not that a christian can’t be a Buddhist too.
Fair point : The Dali Lama on his visit to Ireland last year was asked whether he sought to make converts to Buddhism and I think said something to the effect that he would rather people became ‘better Christians’ through his teaching/influence.
>the NEHB getting Drogheda was crucial to getting rid of Neary.
Yes : I think you are right there
>On the funeral, bit of hypocrisy, cowardice and practicality thrown in there. I think ritual is important, especially for those grieving. I want the official goodbye And anyway, what else would they do with me? They have the church and the graveyard and the expertise. No point screwing with that.
Ah the re-inventing the wheel argument – can’t beat experience
> And who knows, maybe I’ll suddenly find faith on my death bed!
Who says you don’t have any!? Everyone believes in someone or something : we are all following somebody. In an argument between those who believe we were made by a creator with plans and purpose for creation and those who believe we exist simply through random chance it is not a case of Faith v non-Faith. Both are Faith perspectives, built on a belief system : so its really a case of ‘what’ not ‘if’ when it comes to Faith. On that note I will conclude before I am accussed of preaching
Primal Sneeze said,
April 17, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Correct on BuddhismStephen Neill: It is not a religion as we understand the concept. In fact, the concept/word does not exist in most Asian cultures. Religion was introduced, regrettably, by European explorers (scavengers).
On whether everyone believes in someone or something: Yes, you’re preaching … [insert smiley face thing here, or imagine it. Maybe just believe it's here.]
Niall said,
April 17, 2007 at 6:19 pm
It’s a rather difficult situation really. Are we really suppossed to turn around to the churches and say “Those schools you own and have run for the past century or so, well we’re not allowing you to provide any religious instruction in them anymore. You can continue to run the schools for us if you like, so long as you remember to do what we want, no more, no less.”
The state failed to provide us with education on its own. It depended upon religious orders to do its job for it. Now we should either have the state build new non-religious schools and withdraw funding from religious schools or we should just let the religious orders to continue on doing the government’s job for it in much the same way that they have been doing for the past couple of decades, religious instruction and all. Which ever option you want, talk to your TD.
Stephen Neill said,
April 17, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Thank you Primal Sneeze – I believe! – I believe! – Having just checked out your blog I am almost sick laughing – what a tonic! – I loved the ‘trilingual joke’ – just wondering whether I can work it into a sermon – Thank you! Reach out and touch the smiley! It’s real
Ray said,
April 18, 2007 at 7:57 am
The Church doesn’t _run_ many schools any more, in the sense of providing the teaching staff. They’re the official patrons, so they decide the ethos of the school (ie. they decide on a religious admissions policy, and that Brand X Bollocks will be taught in Bolloxology class)
The government should adopt the Educate Together model. The school board is made up of teachers and parents. If the churches are involved in teaching, they’ll have a say in the running of the school. (Not the only say, but a say) If they’re not, they won’t.
(And no, “not believing in God” is not ‘faith’, any more than ‘not believing in Santa Claus’ is ‘faith’, or ‘not believing in invisible fairies that hold on to our feet to stop us floating off into space’ is ‘faith’. Faith is a religious term.)
Stephen Neill said,
April 18, 2007 at 8:37 am
Ray said: (And no, “not believing in God” is not ‘faith’, any more than ‘not believing in Santa Claus’ is ‘faith’, or ‘not believing in invisible fairies that hold on to our feet to stop us floating off into space’ is ‘faith’. Faith is a religious term.)
Ray – You don’t believe in Santa Claus – you are surely dammed!
Yes it is faith because if you don’t believe in something you believe in something else that is incompatible with the one you are rejecting.
Re definition of Faith – Check your dictionary! It is not an exclusively religious term.
Ray said,
April 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Stephen, that’s just nonsense. Absence of belief is not the same as belief.
I don’t have ‘faith’ that the universe came into existence and people evolved naturally, I have conclusions drawn from evidence.
Faith, as the Bilble defines it, is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”. Whose definition are you going to trust – that of a fallible human, or that of divinely-inspired saint?
Stephen Neill said,
April 19, 2007 at 12:08 am
Ray said:
I don’t have ‘faith’ that the universe came into existence and people evolved naturally, I have conclusions drawn from evidence.
Sounds like Scientific fundamentalism to me – no more appealing than the Christian variety! Incidentally I’m not denying Evolution. I don’t see it as contradictary to Christian faith.
And what you have articulated is a belief in the veracity of the evidence you cite – still a belief no matter how you spin it. The is no such thing as uninterpreted experience hence belief is a sine qua non.
Stephen Neill said,
April 19, 2007 at 12:12 am
Ray said: Whose definition are you going to trust – that of a fallible human, or that of divinely-inspired saint?
Saint or not still fallible human! We Prods don’t go in for this infallibility lark!
(cheap shot I know)
Ray said,
April 19, 2007 at 7:36 am
Stephen, just calling science ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘faith’ doesn’t make it so. It’s telling that you think these are such weak points in religion, and feel the need to pin the same problems on the competition.
Gerry said,
April 19, 2007 at 8:27 am
come one ray, you have a belief system. it is stunning arrogance on the side of the rationalists that all their conclusions are based on objective evidence and that there is no interpretation involverd. Yours might well be the most provable conclusions but you are choosing to believe in them and choosing to reject other conclusions. Therefore you have a belief system, there is a (very small) leap of faith to trust in the reported science only a tiny amount, if any, you can have directly observed or proven yourself.
Ray said,
April 19, 2007 at 10:59 am
I think my senses are more or less accurate, and logic works. Stephen believes in miracles and an invisible man in the sky. Calling them both ‘belief systems’ is deliberate obfuscation.
Stephen Neill said,
April 19, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Ray said: I think* my senses are more or less accurate, and logic works. Stephen believes in miracles and an invisible man in the sky +. Calling them both ‘belief systems’ is deliberate obfuscation.
* QED
+ Do I? Don’t remember saying that?
Ray – this is no longer about faith – it’s about you being stuck back in the ‘modern world’ when we have all moved into the post-modern one! You still don’t get it! There is nothing to choose between Scientific fundamentalism and the religious variety.
I welcome and embrace Science but I am not so brave as to say that there is no Ultimate significance to life – I actually believe that Science points towards it. It is far more radical and to propose the opposite! Perhaps I am just not brave enough.
Ray said,
April 20, 2007 at 7:24 am
See, you can jump up and down all you want, and say “He said ‘believe’! That means he has faith! He’s just as religious as I am!”, but it’s more irritating than convincing.
You want a difference between ‘scientific fundamentalism’ (again, not actually convincing) and religious faith? What do they have to say about the origin of the universe?
The scientific perspective (as I understand it) is that we don’t know what happened at the very beginning of the universe. As we learn more, we might get closer to understanding the earliest fractions of a second, but we’ll probably never know exactly what happened, or ‘why’.
The Christian answer is simple. How did the universe get here? God made it. How did he make it? With his Godly powers. Where did God come from? God was always there.
But if a scientist uses the word ‘believe’ at any point in his explanation then they’re both fundamentalism and science is just like religion and la la la la la ….
Fiona said,
January 24, 2008 at 12:52 am
Really enjoyed your article. I am getting so frustrated with this country. I am Irish and atheist as are all of my family, well I would say most are ex-catholics. The same for my friends ex-catholics and ex-protestants mostly non-believers in god or believers of god but not religion.
Despite all the non-believers of the catholic faith I keep seeing them baptising their children. For a long time I did not understand this but I have recently learned that in order to secure a place for your child in a local school you must be catholic since nearly all schools in this country are catholic. If the school is oversubscribed it will chose catholics first and if you are not catholic you will be denied a place and forced to look for another school miles away. This is forcing many Irish people to baptise their children. Is this not somehow human rights abuse?
If we, as tax payers, are funding the schools then why do we not have a choice in what school our child attends rather than the church deciding if you are suitable? Why are most state funded schools run by the catholic church who, as it turns out, have been abusing our children for years.
Is it neccesary that state funded schools are run by the church and have crosses with a dead man hanging in our classrooms? Religion is a private matter and should not be part of school.
I am getting worried now for when I have children in the future. I am starting to feel pressured that I must baptise them so they can attend a good local school with other children from the area and not be forced into some horrible school miles away. And in order to baptise my child would I then in tun have to be baptised? I just can’t do it. I was recently at a christening and it was awful, a tiny baby being cleansed of it’s sin and it’s stone heart being replaced by a heart of flesh. Does anyone actually listen to what these people are saying or even more worryingly does anyone actually believe it?
Has anyone ever challenged this legally? I just can’t see how this blatent discrimination can be legal. What’s next catholic schools who expel children who are gay,because being gay is against their religion. Or would that be considered discrimination?
For those who have given in and cleansed their children’s sins can you now decline communion and confirmation or must your child be forced even further into their “chosen” faith? Is there a way to un-baptise yourself when you are older and get a new certificate stating you are a non-catholic?
B said,
January 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Apostasy is practically impossible without the “permission” of the Vatican. I know I tried it. You are in the club and you can never leave.
The only way is to get thrown out and with the Nazi pope the bar is set pretty high.
The church could not care less about the rise in world population. They have no issue with having 10, 20, 30 billion people. Who cares if the earth can sustain this?
B said,
January 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Oh yea, by the way ask the next priest you meet where Oliver O’Grady is. I bet they won’t even know who he is.
Dumped in Ireland after being convicted in the States the church is happy to hide him here. Last I heard he was in Nenagh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_O‘Grady
All they care about is their power. They could not care in the slightest about the welfare and safety of ordinary people.