Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

School patronage

Options
1…129130132134135…194

Comments

  • Options
    #3932
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    smacl wrote: »
    394005.JPG

    First educational institute that came to mind as suitable to be taught this material when I read it was St. Patricks College Maynooth :pac:

    I dip in and out here occasionally: the arch superciliousness of the RCC caught my attention here. The word disordered of course is one of their code words for gay ( the pedants can debate state or actions) so it's interesting them using it here to promote the view that disorder leads to the good being confused with evil. Nice to know they still regard me in my dotage as the spawn of Satan. I am amused.

    Some other bits: the agents of a foreign state is a nice angle; as the hierarchy answer to the Pope it has basis. The bishops hold their position only with the approval of the Pope. It's a long standing issue between states and church, Henry 8th etc. Nonetheless, it's an angle in terms of patronage of schools that might merit exploration.

    I wonder how many of the female teachers in school (I think they're in the majority) could present some of the stuff about women without having qualms of conscience. Maybe they all agree with it: the employer might have to review their social media accounts to see if they dress appropriately. :pac:


  • Options
    #3933
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    I dip in and out here occasionally: the arch superciliousness of the RCC caught my attention here. The word disordered of course is one of their code words for gay ( the pedants can debate state or actions) so it's interesting them using it here to promote the view that disorder leads to the good being confused with evil. Nice to know they still regard me in my dotage as the spawn of Satan. I am amused.
    I don't think it's really a code word; the Church is pretty clear that it considers homosexual acts to be one of a number of intrinsically disordered acts, along with fornication, masturbation, etc etc. We might leap to the conclusion that only one particular disordered action is being offered for discussion in the workbook, but I suspect the plural indicates they're all in the potential mix, and might be considered to be evil presented as good. Though such a reference is conspicuously absent from the text, I reckon if any disordered actions in dotage leads to one being considered the spawn of Satan, there'll be a lot of spawn about.....
    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Some other bits: the agents of a foreign state is a nice angle; as the hierarchy answer to the Pope it has basis. The bishops hold their position only with the approval of the Pope. It's a long standing issue between states and church, Henry 8th etc. Nonetheless, it's an angle in terms of patronage of schools that might merit exploration.
    Probably not though; the Pope is only an ex officio Head of State, and Bishops aren't actually employed by the State in question. I think it's one of those things that appears good only from the most vanishingly oblique of angles; a direct view reveals the immensely obvious flaws right away.
    Fleawuss wrote: »
    I wonder how many of the female teachers in school (I think they're in the majority) could present some of the stuff about women without having qualms of conscience. Maybe they all agree with it: the employer might have to review their social media accounts to see if they dress appropriately. :pac:
    I'd imagine they could open with "Does anyone think that..." and allow discussion to ensue. In fact, the educators notes for the section actually say the teacher should ask the pupils what they think about the affirmations. So they probably wouldn't have to wrestle with their consciences overmuch?


  • Options
    #3934
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think it's really a code word; the Church is pretty clear that it considers homosexual acts to be one of a number of intrinsically disordered acts, along with fornication, masturbation, etc etc.
    Of course it is. You don't need any of the links available to know full well that the RCC regards homosexuality as a "disordered inclination". As i said, I'll leave it to pedants to argue the toss (pun intended) about acts and states.

    Absolam wrote: »
    We might leap to the conclusion that only one particular disordered action is being offered for discussion in the workbook,
    We might but we won't because I didn't. I said it was a code for word gay. I didn't say anything beyond that.

    Absolam wrote: »
    but I suspect the plural indicates they're all in the potential mix, and might be considered to be evil presented as good.
    Masturbation is disordered. :D:D

    Absolam wrote: »
    Though such a reference is conspicuously absent from the text, I reckon if any disordered actions in dotage leads to one being considered the spawn of Satan, there'll be a lot of spawn about.....
    Though one might ignore the implication of the text that disordered actions lead to evil nonetheless the absurdity of the implication is quite well revealed in your own post here.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Probably not though; the Pope is only an ex officio Head of State, and Bishops aren't actually employed by the State in question. I think it's one of those things that appears good only from the most vanishingly oblique of angles; a direct view reveals the immensely obvious flaws right away.
    All Heads of State are Heads of State ex officio i.e. by the nature of the office they hold i.e. head of state. What you are trying say is that the pope is elected Bishop of Rome which makes him pope which makes him head of state of the Vatican.
    I don't think the angle is vanishingly oblique at all (only of course if one does not wish to see possibilities because of where one is standing). However, you will understand that I won't be advertising any position here to those who are committed to the status quo.



    Absolam wrote: »
    I'd imagine they could open with "Does anyone think that..." and allow discussion to ensue. In fact, the educators notes for the section actually say the teacher should ask the pupils what they think about the affirmations. So they probably wouldn't have to wrestle with their consciences overmuch?
    I note the casting of denunciation as affirmation. :D Amusing to see after all these years.

    I note also your hopeful construction as to how female teachers might avoid thinking about the stuff that they are expected to teach about women. An important strategy to promote. I'm sure you have easy access to all sorts of rules and guidelines around ethos and the hiring of teachers for RC schools; I don't. Would any of those guidelines (I'm using this as a catchall term) state requirements around being practising RCs and upholding ethos?


  • Options
    #3935
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Since this is a million mile from School Patronage and I've no desire to continue off topic, I've placed my response in a new thread here.

    If a mod wants to move the other relevant posts over that would make sense, and let the subject live or die on it's own merits.


  • Options
    #3936
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Absolam wrote: »
    Since this is a million mile from School Patronage and I've no desire to continue off topic, I've placed my response in a new thread here.

    If a mod wants to move the other relevant posts over that would make sense, and let the subject live or die on it's own merits.

    I think the issues mentioned by me go to the heart of school patronage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3937
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    I think the issues mentioned by me go to the heart of school patronage.
    I can't see it myself, but if you want to make the case sure I won't stop you :)


  • Options
    #3938
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,775 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    yerman has appealed school planning to an bord pleanna http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28374-planning-block-on-castlebar-school


  • Options
    #3939
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Yerman is an idiot who is biased against ET, yet he is voicing the legitimate concerns of the neighbours that the building is not suitable for a school.
    It is those legitimate concerns that ABP will base their final decision on.

    The real issue is in danger of being lost here; if the schoolgoing population of the town is expanding, then a brand new "fit for purpose" publicly funded school should be built. If the population is not growing, one of the RC schools should be divested and then given a makeover. Simple as.
    It could be done by CPO, or they could be forced to hand over one school by the threat of withdrawing public funding from the others.


  • Options
    #3940
    techdiver
    Registered Users Posts: 3,088 ✭✭✭techdiver


    recedite wrote: »
    Yerman is an idiot who is biased against ET, yet he is voicing the legitimate concerns of the neighbours that the building is not suitable for a school.
    It is those legitimate concerns that ABP will base their final decision on.

    The real issue is in danger of being lost here; if the schoolgoing population of the town is expanding, then a brand new "fit for purpose" publicly funded school should be built. If the population is not growing, one of the RC schools should be divested and then given a makeover. Simple as.
    It could be done by CPO, or they could be forced to hand over one school by the threat of withdrawing public funding from the others.

    You're being generous.

    He is basically blocking the opening of a non denominational school because he's a typical religious zealot who thinks non religious parents should just shut up and get in line.


  • Options
    #3941
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    techdiver wrote: »
    He is basically blocking the opening of a non denominational school because he's a typical religious zealot who thinks non religious parents should just shut up and get in line.
    I agree that is his motivation, but he is not appealing the planning on those grounds. He is appealing on the basis that the building is unsuitable for the proposed purpose. Which is probably correct, so don't be surprised when he "wins".
    Its a tricky situation for ET. Ideally they would refuse the offer of this building and hold out for something more suitable for use as a school. On the other hand, they have already refused the offer of one rubbish building. If they keep refusing offers, they will seem "picky" and lose public sympathy. I'm not sure how much support they actually have in this town at the moment, but its probably not as much as they would have in Dublin.

    The situation we have in this country is that the "ethos" in new publicly funded schools is largely awarded on the basis of local support, as opposed to equality of opportunity for all the kids.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3942
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    The real issue is in danger of being lost here; if the schoolgoing population of the town is expanding, then a brand new "fit for purpose" publicly funded school should be built. If the population is not growing, one of the RC schools should be divested and then given a makeover. Simple as.
    It could be done by CPO, or they could be forced to hand over one school by the threat of withdrawing public funding from the others.
    I think that 'simple as' must be the most erroneous statements ever made on this thread, and I include the idea that forcing private schools into the public sector would save money!

    The idea of CPOing the property of a religious order, or bullying a patron by threatening to withdraw legitimate funding for schools is nonsensical... and I'm sure you know it.
    recedite wrote: »
    The situation we have in this country is that the "ethos" in new publicly funded schools is largely awarded on the basis of local support, as opposed to equality of opportunity for all the kids.
    Don't forget diversity; amongst the examples on the thread we've seen where the public support was for denominational patrons but the patronage was nevertheless awarded elsewhere in order to provide more diversity in the area. So local support isn't even the most significant element, never mind the only element, in awarding patronage.


  • Options
    #3943
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    The idea of CPOing the property of a religious order, or bullying a patron by threatening to withdraw legitimate funding for schools is nonsensical... and I'm sure you know it.

    Why?

    What is so different from a religious order owned property and any other private property?

    The housing act mentions nothing about religion. I see no mention of the word in either the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland's 'Guide to CPOs' and citizensinformation also makes no mention of religion, let alone any mention of the 'nonsensicality' of applying this (admittedly and widely understood as draconian but necessary) legislation to private property owners that happen to also be religious orders.

    Consider of course that CPOs are applied to Private Owners with this constitutional protection available.
    Article 43 wrote:
    1 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

    2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

    2 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

    2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

    Article 44.2.6 in the constitution appears to provide some additional security to religious owners, but actually contains very same caveat that CPOs operate under.
    Article 44.2.6 wrote:
    The property of any religious domination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

    Page 93 of this apparently quite authoritive book on the subject of CPOs Compulsory Purchase and Compensation in Ireland: Law and Practice which can be scanned on google books offers this under the heading "Property of Religious Denominations and Educational Institutions' when discussing that constitutional article above.
    The application of this article of the Constitution awaits judicial consideration but the likelihood is that the courts will give a wide interpretation of 'public utility'


    The Irish Council for Civil Liberties have a useful pdf here regarding individual rights which very helpfully has two relevant items on pages 24/25. The right to property and the right to education.

    CPOs are an unfortunate but accepted part of our legislation. I can't find anything that suggests that religious orders are exempt from that legislation in Ireland.


  • Options
    #3944
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why?
    What is so different from a religious order owned property and any other private property? The<...> legislation in Ireland.
    I'm surprised you've forgotten the last time we discussed the subject, since you did participate in it if I recall?
    I don't think anything has changed legally since then; seizing property used by a religious organisation for the purpose of education in order to provide it to another organisation who will use it for the same purpose is exceptionally unlikely to pass as 'necessary works of public utility'; we know works of public utility are not defined in the current Constitution, but The Irish Constitution by Kelly, Hogan & White (a King's Inns Constitutional Law textbook) points out that that Article 8 of the 1922 Constitution is helpful here, as it specifies “roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage …”, suggesting that the Government could not rely on this wording to justify taking property for some grander function. Not that anyone would think the same function might be construed as anything other than... the same function. Tricky to argue that someone doing the same thing in the same place with the same building is a necessary work of public utility, even with a very wide interpretation of 'public utility'. Some people might think removing the religious from education is a necessary work of public utility itself (though I doubt anyone is silly enough to try and convince a Court), however, it's unlikely anyone could successfully argue that it's not imposing a disability on the grounds of religious profession, since the only difference would be that the new owners would be performing the same function, with the same facility, simply without the religious element.

    That's kind of why.


  • Options
    #3945
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm surprised you've forgotten the last time we discussed the subject, since you did participate in it if I recall?
    I don't think anything has changed legally since then; seizing property used by a religious organisation for the purpose of education in order to provide it to another organisation who will use it for the same purpose is exceptionally unlikely to pass as 'necessary works of public utility'; we know works of public utility are not defined in the current Constitution, but The Irish Constitution by Kelly, Hogan & White (a King's Inns Constitutional Law textbook) points out that that Article 8 of the 1922 Constitution is helpful here, as it specifies “roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage …”, suggesting that the Government could not rely on this wording to justify taking property for some grander function. Not that anyone would think the same function might be construed as anything other than... the same function. Tricky to argue that someone doing the same thing in the same place with the same building is a necessary work of public utility, even with a very wide interpretation of 'public utility'. Some people might think removing the religious from education is a necessary work of public utility itself (though I doubt anyone is silly enough to try and convince a Court), however, it's unlikely anyone could successfully argue that it's not imposing a disability on the grounds of religious profession, since the only difference would be that the new owners would be performing the same function, with the same facility, simply without the religious element.

    That's kind of why.

    It would not.

    That's kind of why.


  • Options
    #3946
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It would not. That's kind of why.
    Since you're not saying what it would not what, I wouldn't really venture an opinion.


  • Options
    #3947
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    Since you're not saying what it would not what, I wouldn't really venture an opinion.

    Does a Muslim school provide the same function as a Church of Ireland School?


  • Options
    #3948
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Does a Muslim school provide the same function as a Church of Ireland School?
    That doesn't seem to be saying what it does not what either. If this is a new line of thought you might want to provide some context; it seems a bit obtuse at the moment.


  • Options
    #3949
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    That doesn't seem to be saying what it does not what either. If this is a new line of thought you might want to provide some context; it seems a bit obtuse at them moment.

    It's rather simple.

    To argue that a non-denominational school would be providing the same function as a religious school but at the same time suggest that religious school of a certain denomination would not be providing the same function as a religious school of another denomination offers some very strange results.


  • Options
    #3950
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's rather simple. To argue that a non-denominational school would be providing the same function as a religious school but at the same time suggest that religious school of a certain denomination would not be providing the same function as a religious school of another denomination offers some very strange results.
    I'm not sure anyone is arguing that, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to either of your preceding posts either.


  • Options
    #3951
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm not sure anyone is arguing that, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to either of your preceding posts either.

    Is this some sort of joke?
    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm surprised you've forgotten the last time we discussed the subject, since you did participate in it if I recall?
    I don't think anything has changed legally since then; seizing property used by a religious organisation for the purpose of education in order to provide it to another organisation who will use it for the same purpose is exceptionally unlikely to pass as 'necessary works of public utility'; we know works of public utility are not defined in the current Constitution, but The Irish Constitution by Kelly, Hogan & White (a King's Inns Constitutional Law textbook) points out that that Article 8 of the 1922 Constitution is helpful here, as it specifies “roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage …”, suggesting that the Government could not rely on this wording to justify taking property for some grander function. Not that anyone would think the same function might be construed as anything other than... the same function. Tricky to argue that someone doing the same thing in the same place with the same building is a necessary work of public utility, even with a very wide interpretation of 'public utility'. Some people might think removing the religious from education is a necessary work of public utility itself (though I doubt anyone is silly enough to try and convince a Court), however, it's unlikely anyone could successfully argue that it's not imposing a disability on the grounds of religious profession, since the only difference would be that the new owners would be performing the same function, with the same facility, simply without the religious element.

    That's kind of why.

    CPO'ing a religious property that is a denominational school to provide a non-denominational school is not 'nonsensical'. Neither would it be providing the same function.

    Have you purposely argued both sides of that coin within 3 posts of each other as some effort to play devil's advocate with yourself or something?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3952
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Is this some sort of joke?
    CPO'ing a religious property that is a denominational school to provide a non-denominational school is not 'nonsensical'. Neither would it be providing the same function.
    Have you purposely argued both sides of that coin within 3 posts of each other as some effort to play devil's advocate with yourself or something?
    I think you're muddling yourself; I haven't argued both sides of any coin.

    Taking a school from a denominational patron and giving it to a non denominational patron doesn't change the school, only the patron. The function remains the same; it is a school. It receives the same recognition from the DoE, the same State funding, teaches the same State curricula, almost certainly to the same pupils. The suggestion that the patron has not been disadvantaged due to their professed religion, and that switching one State approved patron for another constitutes a necessary work of public utility is nonsensical.


  • Options
    #3953
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think you're muddling yourself; I haven't argued both sides of any coin.

    Taking a school from a denominational patron and giving it to a non denominational patron doesn't change the school, only the patron. The function remains the same; it is a school. It receives the same recognition from the DoE, the same State funding, teaches the same State curricula, almost certainly to the same pupils. The suggestion that the patron has not been disadvantaged due to their professed religion, and that switching one State approved patron for another constitutes a necessary work of public utility is nonsensical.

    Shall I just copy and paste this preceding bit then?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Does a Muslim school provide the same function as a Church of Ireland School?
    Absolam wrote: »
    That doesn't seem to be saying what it does not what either. If this is a new line of thought you might want to provide some context; it seems a bit obtuse at the moment.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's rather simple.

    To argue that a non-denominational school would be providing the same function as a religious school but at the same time suggest that religious school of a certain denomination would not be providing the same function as a religious school of another denomination offers some very strange results.


  • Options
    #3954
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Shall I just copy and paste this preceding bit then?
    You do seem muddled alright.
    Maybe if we go back to here;
    Deleted User wrote: »
    It would not. That's kind of why.
    You could try something a little less cryptic and see how we go from there?


  • Options
    #3955
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    You do seem muddled alright.
    Maybe if we go back to here;

    You could try something a little less cryptic and see how we go from there?

    Amazing.


  • Options
    #3956
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I don't understand why there are so many religious demoninated schools anymore considering that the religious orders were supposed to hand over hundreds of millions worth of school buildings as part of the child abuse redress scheme

    We should't be CPOing school buildings from the religious orders, we should be taking possession of them as part payment for the whole-scale abuse of children that seems to have fallen out of the public consciousness recently.


  • Options
    #3957
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    Absolam wrote: »

    Taking a school from a denominational patron and giving it to a non denominational patron doesn't change the school, only the patron. The function remains the same; it is a school.

    What an idiotic thing to say.


  • Options
    #3958
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    ..the 1922 Constitution is helpful here, as it specifies “roads, railways, lighting, water or drainage …”, suggesting that the Government could not rely on this wording to justify taking property for some grander function...
    There is no suggestion whatsoever there that their list is exhaustive. If the list doesn't mention electricity, telephone, broadband and schools owned by the Dept. of Education, maybe its simply because these things were unheard of back in 1922?
    And if anything, some "grander function" would have a better claim to CPO private property than some function of a lesser public importance.


  • Options
    #3959
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Bristolscale7 wrote: »
    What an idiotic thing to say.

    A pithy contribution, if a little lacking in substance?


  • Options
    #3960
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    There is no suggestion whatsoever there that their list is exhaustive. If the list doesn't mention electricity, telephone, broadband and schools owned by the Dept. of Education, maybe its simply because these things were unheard of back in 1922?
    And if anything, some "grander function" would have a better claim to CPO private property than some function of a lesser public importance.
    Nope, it certainly can't be taken as exhaustive. But that doesn't mean what may be considered 'necessary works of public utility' goes as far as 'whatever some people would like to see'. It must still be a necessary work of public utility. No one has given any reason to think that swapping the patron of a school comes even close to that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3961
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Akrasia wrote: »
    We should't be CPOing school buildings from the religious orders, we should be taking possession of them as part payment for the whole-scale abuse of children that seems to have fallen out of the public consciousness recently.
    Certainly, taking payment for any debts owed would be something the State could pursue through the Courts; again it was discussed in the other thread quite a bit. We've no reason to think that the particular denomination recedite is proposing unilaterally divesting of their property in order to help out Educate Together actually owes the State anything though, do we?


Advertisement