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…109110112114115…194

Comments

  • Options
    #3332
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    Certainly that's what some people see as a problem; others see the problem as the inclusion of religion in the education system at all. The reverse could become true; people might see it as a problem that they couldn't send their children to schools which pro-actively preserve the ethos they want for their children, or they could have a problem with the State refusing to allow them to provide what they feel is appropriate religious and moral education in schools established by the State.

    Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether. That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution as it should be. So those people can go suck on a lemon or set up their own school. I can't see too many schools being handed over by the churches to become educate together if the local people in the area overwhelmingly want the school to remain Catholic or Protestant or whatever it is. I doubt too many people would argue about that sort of situation.


  • Options
    #3333
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether. That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution as it should be. So those people can go suck on a lemon or set up their own school. I can't see too many schools being handed over by the churches to become educate together if the local people in the area overwhelmingly want the school to remain Catholic or Protestant or whatever it is. I doubt too many people would argue about that sort of situation.

    Yeah, I mean somethings in Ireland will never change and people that want them to change can just go off and suck lemons,

    Gay people marrying? Sure our constitution says that's wrong, that won't change and a majority are against it. It'll never be made legal....


    That backwards arse mindset existed only a few sort years ago, hell even 18 months ago...or even last April and may it was an argument we saw again and again. But yet we saw change when the facts were laid out.

    Don't be too sure our school system won't change, already the church is admitting that using baptism certs for admissions isn't right.

    You seem awful sure about something that is very far from certain,


  • Options
    #3334
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    There are those who would (and do) argue that allowing non Christians into the schools where they are a minority in the area would make schools with a religious ethos more secular. My own feeling is both arguments are satisfied as long as there is no shortage of school places; currently ethos criteria only kick in when a school is oversubscribed. Increase the capacity of schools that are likely to be oversubscribed and you solve the problem of ethos discrimination. The 'problem' of State funded schools engaging in faith formation, which is in fact the issue most A&A regulars have with our education system is a somewhat thornier one I think.

    That's also possibly true but also a load of bull****. You're basically saying that its harder to indoctrinate kids in false gods when they are exposed to atheists who might tell them about that the whole god thing is a load of bum fluff :) And the reality on the ground is that there is probably no school that would dare turn away a child that's not of the same religion when there is no competition for places. Irish schools are essentially secular already. Muslims, Atheists and Hindus send their kids to Catholic and Protestant schools all over the country and there is absolutely no problem caused by it. They are kids so they're probably less likely to be as bigoted or as pro-segregation as your good self. And going to school together they learn to accept each other, accept their differences, understand their common ground as "humans" and get on with each other and believe it or not be friends in most cases.

    So when there does turn out to be competition for places in a school which is rare enough then its a load of crap to suddenly invoke bull**** laws that suddenly promote segregation and discrimination.

    And while religion is fully protected by the constitution to maintain its affairs and property as it sees fit it should be noted that most of these schools are funded by public money, maintained by public money and in a lot of cases were built with public money. So a lot of the "property" or "funding" is public, not really the "property" or "funding" of a religious denomination. I'd say a lot of schools are probably only "religious denomination" in name and ethos and that's all. So parents of other religions have a very strong case to claim that a lot of these schools should be fully open to any tax payers child.

    Believe it or not, Ireland is meant to be a secular country and its enshrined throughout the constitution. That means it shouldn't favour one religion over another. The fact that religious orders control 96% of the schools is due to government after government after government neglecting their responsibility to "all" the population and citizens of "all" faiths. They should never have allowed such discriminatory laws that force about 96% of the population to have to join a religion just to get a basic human right such as an education. They should have seen these problems coming a long long time ago.

    And building a load of new secular schools is bull**** also. Under your proposal, they would need to ensure that every new school ever built is secular just to ensure that discriminatory laws cannot be invoked. The country doesnt have the money or resources to build hundreds of brand new secular schools just to suit you're fear of people of other faiths. And in a lot of cases it would be just pure stupid to build a new school as there might be a town with just a handful of kids of the wrong faith who can't get into a Catholic or Protestant school due to these laws being invoked.

    And you should remember that the shoe was on the other foot in Northern Ireland in the 1960's when Catholics were being discriminated against as places in social housing were assigned to Protestants first or at least could have been for very similar reasons, ie. applicants for social housing exceeded social housing so they gave preference to Protestants as they were the majority. How fair do you think that was?

    And Jesus! What do you think Jesus would do if he was around today? Think he'd discriminate against people of other religions, particularly kids? Maybe the point of the story about Jesus and the Good Samaritan was kind of lost on all you Christians?

    Personally as an atheist, I'd actually like to send my child to a Catholic or Protestant school even if the whole god thing is for the birds ultimately. It would do the child no harm to learn about Jesus, his life, his teachings and his philosophy. He was one Christian who had the right idea about how we should all get on with each other. My son or daughter can also make their own mind up about god. I don't really feel the need to indoctrinate them in my faith or lack there of.


  • Options
    #3335
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,245 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether.

    Yes, religious instruction should be outlawed in all schools funded via the State by taxpayers. Education should not come with a compulsory indoctrination side dish. A truly unbiased non-didactic RE syllabus is worthwhile however, but I would not trust any religious patron to deliver that impartially, for obvious reasons.
    That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution

    It's actually not. The right to not undergo religious instruction in a school funded by the State is protected in the Constitution. However in practice that right is all but meaningless when 96% of primary schools are under religious control and are allowed discriminate in enrolment on the grounds of religion.
    as it should be.

    Why do you say it should be? Give me one good reason why.
    So those people can go suck on a lemon or set up their own school.

    So you actively support discrimination against atheists and minority faith members in the delivery of State services then??
    I can't see too many schools being handed over by the churches to become educate together if the local people in the area overwhelmingly want the school to remain Catholic or Protestant or whatever it is. I doubt too many people would argue about that sort of situation.

    What they want (and it's invarably a few auld biddies who kick up a fuss about these things, not actual parents) is irrelevant, human rights are not a popularity contest. If there wasn't a single non-catholic in Ireland it would still be wrong to indoctrinate in religion in schools.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    Irish schools are essentially secular already.

    Utter tosh. Embarrassingly wrong in fact.
    And going to school together they learn to accept each other, accept their differences, understand their common ground as "humans" and get on with each other and believe it or not be friends in most cases.

    They learn that "Ireland is a catholic country" and are taught that catholicism is the one true faith, and they see that catholics are favoured by the State and as non-catholics they're second-class citizens.
    So when there does turn out to be competition for places in a school which is rare enough

    It is NOT 'rare enough'. Again, you should be embarrassed writing such utter nonsense.
    * (2 paragraphs of massive self-contradictions snipped) *
    And building a load of new secular schools is bull**** also.

    I agree. But where does that fit in, exactly, with sucking lemons or building a new school yourself?
    Personally as an atheist, I'd actually like to send my child to a Catholic or Protestant school even if the whole god thing is for the birds ultimately. It would do the child no harm to learn about Jesus, his life, his teachings and his philosophy.

    You mean the teachings attributed to him, that's if he existed at all...
    You certainly don't need to send a child to a christian ethos school to have them learn about christianity, it's taught in every ET (along with the principles of other major faiths) and is part of the Dept Ed's new multi-faith RE syllabus they want to bring in.

    Your posts are extremely confusing to read and it's now impossible to know whether you're arguing for secularism or against it tbh.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #3336
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Yeah, I mean somethings in Ireland will never change and people that want them to change can just go off and suck lemons,

    Gay people marrying? Sure our constitution says that's wrong, that won't change and a majority are against it. It'll never be made legal....


    That backwards arse mindset existed only a few sort years ago, hell even 18 months ago...or even last April and may it was an argument we saw again and again. But yet we saw change when the facts were laid out.

    Don't be too sure our school system won't change, already the church is admitting that using baptism certs for admissions isn't right.

    You seem awful sure about something that is very far from certain,

    I'm just saying that those that would like to destroy the church and completely remove religion from all schools will find that very hard. Religion is very well protected in the constitution as is peoples right to educate their kids about religion in school. I doubt that will change any time soon. Irish history is fairly scared by people's faith being trampled on, particularly Catholics. So they put a lot of thought into how to protect peoples religious rights when they drew up the constitution. One religion lawfully shouldnt be able to subdue other religions of minorities or atheists thanks to the constitution. Similarly, atheists and agnostics wont be able to trample on peoples right to have their kids taught about religion in schools thanks to the constitution.

    As I've previously pointed out already, I don't see that the constitution protects any religious order in preventing children of another faith attending schools under the patronage of that religion either (or at least a fair number of kids from another religious or non religious order). And I believe the law, as opposed to the constitution, needs to be changed to be better in line with the protection afforded under the constitution for kids to attend a school of their choice even if they are of the wrong religion.

    And yes I believe the law will change soon. And the religious orders are shooting themselves in the foot the more they resist. As in if they pressurize the government to keep discriminatory laws then the state will probably be forced to invoke "in the common good" clauses in the constitution to have religious order schools divested under the control of the state with a more secular focus that allows kids of all religions to attend.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3337
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Yes, religious instruction should be outlawed in all schools funded via the State by taxpayers. Education should not come with a compulsory indoctrination side dish. A truly unbiased non-didactic RE syllabus is worthwhile however, but I would not trust any religious patron to deliver that impartially, for obvious reasons.

    Thats why peoples right to educate their children in religion or not is protected in the constitution. There is people like you on either the ultra catholic or ultra anti-religion side who wish to push their own agenda on everyone else. That has to be protected against. There is plenty of scope in any school for people to attend religion classes or not or attend different alternatives to religion all in the same school.

    I don't really have much time for this whole god rubbish but I was raised a Catholic and I can't really fault too much about what was written about Jesus (yes he might not have existed either but on the balance of probability from the few facts from history that I've read it appears he might have. The Romans were fairly clinical in their recording of history). I also accept that other people want to raise their kids as Catholics so let them at it. I don't see a need to burst their bubble and I try to see their point of view.

    Most of this mess could be resolved if Irish kids were allowed into Catholic/Protestant schools from other faiths and were not forced to attend Catholic/Protestant religion classes or an alternative was offered to them in the same school. Seems simple enough to me.


  • Options
    #3338
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,245 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It says in the constitution that the primary educator of children is the family and it protects their rights strongly, as it should. It gives lesser protection to religious organisations, and nowhere does it say that religion may be used as an admission criterion. In fact it says the precise opposite, that the State may not discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion - yet the education system it funds does exactly that.

    What you're advocating is segregation during the school day, marking kids out as different and marching them off elsewhere while the catholics stay in the classroom and do their flavour of the religion thing. It's exactly like the deeply flawed Community National School model.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-this-the-answer-to-the-school-patronage-debate-1.2496735

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-answer-to-school-patronage-model-1.2504241
    Sir, – I refer to Carl O’Brien’s article in relation to the Community National Schools, “Is this the answer to the school patronage model?” (Education, January 19th). As a parent in the process of applying for a school place for my five-year-old son, my answer to your reporter’s question is an emphatic “No”.

    From the limited information available on the Community National School model, children are segregated into four groups for what is referred to as “faith nurturing”. These groups are Catholic, other Christian, Muslim and a group comprising Hindus, Buddhists and humanists.

    Too many questions come to mind to include in this letter in relation to how these groups work in practice, particularly the fourth grouping.

    In addition, it is important to note that not all non-religious people identify themselves as humanists.

    How are children of these families facilitated? In any event, I do not want my children labelled and segregated from their classmates on religious grounds.

    In practice, this means separating children according to their religious background during a school day. Catholic children remain with their class teachers for religious instruction, as in Catholic schools, and “others” are removed for some alternative provision. This may or may not involve religious instruction, depending on whether or not the child in question happens to be identified as being in a “main faith group”.

    No matter how carefully teachers try to manage this at local level, the model is founded on flawed principles – more focussed on the rights of religious organisations than those of individual children (or teachers). These divisive practices should not be permitted, never mind promoted, in State schools.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #3339
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    There are the international agreements relating to human rights etc that Ireland Inc. has signed up to. And also there is the domestic constitutional requirement to cherish all the children of the nation equally.
    If we step away from the nonsensical fiction of "Ireland Inc" however, we're left with the fact that the Irish State signed up to international agreements, and the responsibilities of the State under them don't necessarily devolve to bodies funded by the State. Like schools for instance.
    recedite wrote: »
    Your point seems to be that the state can avoid these responsibilities by inserting an extra (and arguably unnecessary) layer of management between itself and the schools, thereby isolating itself from any discrimination.
    No, not in the least; my point is that the State is responsible for it's legal obligations, schools are responsible for their legal obligations. The fact that the State funds schools doesn't make the schools responsible for the States obligations (schools for instance don't provide troops for UN peacekeeping), not that I'm saying the State has any obligation to provide secular education to all children in the first place. We already know that at a European level, Article 9 of the Convention provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society", and Article 2 runs fairly similar to the Irish Constitution, placing the choice with parents rather than the State; "No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions." I think you imagine schools are compelled to take up the States obligations; I think that would only be the case if the State compelled them to do so.
    recedite wrote: »
    However, despite choosing to fund these schools via managers or "patrons" instead of by direct management, the buck still stops at the state. This was proved in the Louise O Keefe case last year when the state denied any responsibility, but the ruling was that "an inherent obligation of a government to protect children from ill-treatment, especially in a primary education context".
    Certain bucks do yes; the Louise O' Keeffe case is a good example of the fact that whilst the State was responsible (specifically vicariously liable) for what happened in the school, neither the High Court, nor the Supreme Court, or the European Court of Human Rights found that the private entities assume the States Convention protective obligations by being delegated a function; the ECtHR found that the State could not avoid its Convention protective obligations by delegating education to a private entity. The States Convention protective obligations don't actually extend to providing (or even providing for) exclusively secular education though, do they? Nor did the ECtHR find that religious education was ill-treatment that a government is inherently obliged to protect children from.
    recedite wrote: »
    So we can assume the same principal applies to religious discrimination as for any other forms of ill treatment or abuse.
    Based on what? The Convention certainly doesn't include discrimination as a form of ill-treatment or abuse. Discrimination has it's own Article (14), which prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the Convention and legal rights provided for in national law. So long as no person is denied the right to education due to their religion the State is compliant; the State has no obligation to ensure they get educated wherever they (or their parents) want, only to ensure they are not denied education. And we have not yet seen a single example of a child not being able to attend school (as distinct from a particular school) because of their religion.
    recedite wrote: »
    Similarly if a private company was being paid to manage a public swimming pool by a county council, it would be incumbent on the county council to ensure that no discrimination was occurring in the pool's admission policy. They could not simply say "its out of our hands" while continuing to fund the swimming pool with public money.
    The private company could however quite reasonably (and legally) say they are not responsible for fulfilling the States obligations regarding discrimination under a European Convention. Despite being funded by the State, they are only responsible for fulfilling their own obligations under Irish legislation regarding discrimination in the pool's admission policy.


  • Options
    #3340
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Cabaal wrote: »
    now now recedite, don't be ruining Absolam's post by referring to annoying factual things like court cases that prove him wrong, :pac:

    Sorry to disappoint you :pac:


  • Options
    #3341
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    It says in the constitution that the primary educator of children is the family and it protects their rights strongly, as it should. It gives lesser protection to religious organisations, and nowhere does it say that religion may be used as an admission criterion. In fact it says the precise opposite, that the State may not discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion - yet the education system it funds does exactly that.
    Yes agreed. Thats what I have been saying in my posts so far.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    What you're advocating is segregation during the school day, marking kids out as different and marching them off elsewhere while the catholics stay in the classroom and do their flavour of the religion thing. It's exactly like the deeply flawed Community National School model.
    I'm not advocating segregation during the school day. I'm advocating the possibility of segregating during religion class time if they want to. There will be some atheist or Muslim parents kids who attend the religion class because the parents don't really care. There will be some thick moany parents who don't want their kids attending religion class in a catholic school. There will be Catholic parents who don't want their kids attending the religious replacement classes in educate together schools and so on and so forth. You cant keep every moany ****er happy so the option to do something else for that "religion hour" or whatever you call it is a happy medium as far as I can see. I dont see a better evil at least.

    Forcing religion out of schools completely will never work and it wouldnt be fair. Kids would be up in arms around the country because they'd be out of pocket regards communion money for a start! :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3342
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #3343
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

    Why do you say it should be? Give me one good reason why.

    Thomas Cromwell for one anyway.

    The Penal Laws in Ireland from 1607 to 1920 secondly.

    And I'll be generous, the USSR Anti Religion campaign 1928 to 1941. That's three!

    Ah sher to hell with it, here is a third. Islamic State in modern day Middle East trying to destroy all other religions that arent extreme Islam.

    Laws promoting one religion over another or discriminating against any religion or similarly regards atheism should all be wiped out world wide. Everyone has the right to believe what they want or not believe and practice it as they wish as long as they don't negatively affect others neglecting the effects on moany aul goats that get offended at the sight or sound of someone practicing a belief other than their own. Simple I think anyway.


  • Options
    #3344
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's also possibly true but also a load of bull****. You're basically saying that its harder to indoctrinate kids in false gods when they are exposed to atheists who might tell them about that the whole god thing is a load of bum fluff :)
    Not at all; I haven't ventured any opinion on how hard it is or isn't to indoctrinate anyone in any circumstances. Only that diluting the population of a school with a particular ethos with students who specifically oppose that ethos is likely to dilute that ethos as well. If parents want their children to absorb that ethos in their education, it's reasonable for them to object to it being taken away.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And the reality on the ground is that there is probably no school that would dare turn away a child that's not of the same religion when there is no competition for places.
    Well, I don't know about dare. As far as I know there are no schools that want to, are there?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Irish schools are essentially secular already. Muslims, Atheists and Hindus send their kids to Catholic and Protestant schools all over the country and there is absolutely no problem caused by it. They are kids so they're probably less likely to be as bigoted or as pro-segregation as your good self. And going to school together they learn to accept each other, accept their differences, understand their common ground as "humans" and get on with each other and believe it or not be friends in most cases.
    Dear me, bigoted and pro segregation? Couldn't you wait until we've exchanged more than a few words before leaping to such aggressive conclusions about my character?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    So when there does turn out to be competition for places in a school which is rare enough then its a load of crap to suddenly invoke bull**** laws that suddenly promote segregation and discrimination.
    So, because everyone pretty much gets along we shouldn't invoke legal protections when needed? I suppose it's a point of view, but I don't think it really pans out in a wider context....
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And while religion is fully protected by the constitution to maintain its affairs and property as it sees fit it should be noted that most of these schools are funded by public money, maintained by public money and in a lot of cases were built with public money. So a lot of the "property" or "funding" is public, not really the "property" or "funding" of a religious denomination. I'd say a lot of schools are probably only "religious denomination" in name and ethos and that's all. So parents of other religions have a very strong case to claim that a lot of these schools should be fully open to any tax payers child.
    I think you're going back to the start of the thread at this point, but a short recap would be that where schools are (almost) entirely funded by, maintained by, and the property of, the State, the State awards the patronage of the school to a body based on parental preferences and diversity requirements in a particular area. And that is what quite often results in a "religious denomination" school; the fact that it's what parents want.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Believe it or not, Ireland is meant to be a secular country and its enshrined throughout the constitution. That means it shouldn't favour one religion over another. The fact that religious orders control 96% of the schools is due to government after government after government neglecting their responsibility to "all" the population and citizens of "all" faiths. They should never have allowed such discriminatory laws that force about 96% of the population to have to join a religion just to get a basic human right such as an education. They should have seen these problems coming a long long time ago.
    I think it's a bit more complicated than that. But I think it has also already been covered extensively in the thread, so there's plenty of reading for you there :)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And building a load of new secular schools is bull**** also. Under your proposal, they would need to ensure that every new school ever built is secular just to ensure that discriminatory laws cannot be invoked. The country doesnt have the money or resources to build hundreds of brand new secular schools just to suit you're fear of people of other faiths. And in a lot of cases it would be just pure stupid to build a new school as there might be a town with just a handful of kids of the wrong faith who can't get into a Catholic or Protestant school due to these laws being invoked.
    I'm not proposing the country build hundreds of brand new secular schools? Nor have I said I'm afraid of people of other faiths. Are you getting a little confused?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And you should remember that the shoe was on the other foot in Northern Ireland in the 1960's when Catholics were being discriminated against as places in social housing were assigned to Protestants first or at least could have been for very similar reasons, ie. applicants for social housing exceeded social housing so they gave preference to Protestants as they were the majority. How fair do you think that was?
    You're upset that Catholics were discriminated against in another country. How does changing our education system affect that exactly?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And Jesus! What do you think Jesus would do if he was around today? Think he'd discriminate against people of other religions, particularly kids? Maybe the point of the story about Jesus and the Good Samaritan was kind of lost on all you Christians?
    I think you're leaping to some big conclusions there. You don't honestly imagine the point of the story about Jesus and the Good Samaritan was kind of lost on "all you Christians", do you? Before we even get to who you imagine "all you Christians" is.


  • Options
    #3345
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Absolam wrote: »
    Not at all; I haven't ventured any opinion on how hard it is or isn't to indoctrinate anyone in any circumstances. Only that diluting the population of a school with a particular ethos with students who specifically oppose that ethos is likely to dilute that ethos as well. If parents want their children to absorb that ethos in their education, it's reasonable for them to object to it being taken away.

    This word ethos needs to be banned. I don't know what it means really or if it has any reality in Irish schools. My only memory from going to ultra catholic schools while growing up was a load of baptized catholics throwing papers at each other, kicking the **** out of each other and generally getting up to any form of mischief that they could conceive during every religion class while the religion teacher was down the staff room drinking tea or generally missing. Generally missing because they were probably secretly atheist or agnostic or didnt care for religion or ethos or realized that the kids in the school as well as the parents didnt really care for religion much either.

    I'd love to know how seriously religion is actually taken in schools around the country in reality? I'd say sweat damn all even where the parents are ultra religious.

    And if the kids and parents and teachers dont give a **** for ethos really then whats the point in the principal invoking some old law when the number of applicants exceeds the number of places.

    Also this A&A forum has an A&A ethos, should we start banning you from commenting here or reading the posts because we feel you're ruining our cherished A&A ethos? Rubbish! Same for ethos in schools.


  • Options
    #3346
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Yes, religious instruction should be outlawed in all schools funded via the State by taxpayers. Education should not come with a compulsory indoctrination side dish. A truly unbiased non-didactic RE syllabus is worthwhile however, but I would not trust any religious patron to deliver that impartially, for obvious reasons.
    I disagree. It should be up to parents to decide if they want their children to receive a particular religious education in school they fund via the State as taxpayers. (Ir)religious education is the responsibility and prerogative of parents; if they want their children to receive a biased didactic religious education in a State school (or not) that's up to them. The State should not interfere in the free exercise of religion except where it infringes the rights of others, that's separation of church and state.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    It's actually not. The right to not undergo religious instruction in a school funded by the State is protected in the Constitution. However in practice that right is all but meaningless when 96% of primary schools are under religious control and are allowed discriminate in enrolment on the grounds of religion.
    It actually is? Here and here, if it helps.... the right not to receive religious instruction is not the only one in there.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Why do you say it should be? Give me one good reason why.
    Because people should be free to live in accordance with their own beliefs as far as is practicable, and sometimes it's necessary to enshrine those freedoms in legislation to ensure they're protected?
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    So you actively support discrimination against atheists and minority faith members in the delivery of State services then??
    Me personally, I believe the State should support both secular and religious school initiatives without any preference other than that expressed by the parents using the schools.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    What they want (and it's invarably a few auld biddies who kick up a fuss about these things, not actual parents) is irrelevant, human rights are not a popularity contest. If there wasn't a single non-catholic in Ireland it would still be wrong to indoctrinate in religion in schools.
    I'd certainly say what some auld biddies want isn't terribly relevant, but I think that what parents want is most relevant of all; it's their right to decide whether or not their children receive religious education, both under the Irish Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Utter tosh. Embarrassingly wrong in fact.
    Well, we can certainly agree that Irish schools are obviously good at producing ardent secularists, anyway :D
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    They learn that "Ireland is a catholic country" and are taught that catholicism is the one true faith, and they see that catholics are favoured by the State and as non-catholics they're second-class citizens.
    It's an interesting assertion. What percentage of the population do you think actually holds those views?


  • Options
    #3347
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,245 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not advocating segregation during the school day.

    That's exactly what you are doing.
    I'm advocating the possibility of segregating during religion class time if they want to.

    Because the alternative is religious indoctrination and parents have a constitutional right to opt out. Religious indoctrination during the state funded school day is the problem here not the parents.
    There will be some atheist or Muslim parents kids who attend the religion class because the parents don't really care. There will be some thick moany parents who don't want their kids attending religion class in a catholic school.

    I don't want my kids attending religion class in a catholic school, all the secondaries here are RC. What do you suggest I do to avoid becoming a target for your derision and abuse?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #3348
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,245 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thomas Cromwell for one anyway.

    Oliver Cromwell I presume. Not seeing the relevance. There wasn't much in the way of education policy in those days anyway.
    The Penal Laws in Ireland from 1607 to 1920 secondly.

    What 'penal laws' remained in effect in the 20th century? Be specific please.
    And I'll be generous, the USSR Anti Religion campaign 1928 to 1941. That's three!

    What the hell has that got to do with education in Ireland?
    People have the right to believe what they want, that doesn't give them the right to hijack the education system for religious ends though.
    Ah sher to hell with it, here is a third. Islamic State in modern day Middle East trying to destroy all other religions that arent extreme Islam.

    Just like conservative catholics who will tolerate no religion except theirs.
    Laws promoting one religion over another or discriminating against any religion or similarly regards atheism should all be wiped out world wide. Everyone has the right to believe what they want or not believe and practice it as they wish as long as they don't negatively affect others neglecting the effects on moany aul goats that get offended at the sight or sound of someone practicing a belief other than their own. Simple I think anyway.

    Contradicting yourself entirely again, within the space of one paragraph this time.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #3349
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This word ethos needs to be banned. I don't know what it means really or if it has any reality in Irish schools.
    Rather than banning words (which is a little like burning books imo) perhaps you'd be better served by taking time to understand it in the context? Given how much it's used, it's obviously pretty relevant to the debate you're engaging in, so you're probably missing out by not understanding it.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    My only memory from going to ultra catholic schools while growing up was a load of baptized catholics throwing papers at each other, kicking the **** out of each other and generally getting up to any form of mischief that they could conceive during every religion class while the religion teacher was down the staff room drinking tea or generally missing. Generally missing because they were probably secretly atheist or agnostic or didnt care for religion or ethos or realized that the kids in the school as well as the parents didnt really care for religion much either.
    Well, you're well ahead of me there so... I wasn't even aware there were such things as ultra catholic schools when I was growing up. Though the behavior you describe witnessing sounds suspiciously common to most schools, so it may not have necessarily been a specific feature of ultra catholic education to be fair....
    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd love to know how seriously religion is actually taken in schools around the country in reality? I'd say sweat damn all even where the parents are ultra religious.
    I'd say it's taken ultra seriously where the parents are ultra religious, and slides to not terribly seriously where parents are not terribly religious, then flips to ultra seriously again where parents are ultra anti-religious.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And if the kids and parents and teachers dont give a **** for ethos really then whats the point in the principal invoking some old law when the number of applicants exceeds the number of places.
    Well, if the parents don't give a **** for the ethos I'd certainly think the principal should be consulting with the patron about changing the ethos. But if the kids and teachers don't give a **** for the ethos, the the principal would certainly be well advised to use the (relatively new, at 2000) law to prevent any further kids and teachers who don't give a **** for the ethos coming into the school whilst they solve the problem.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Also this A&A forum has an A&A ethos, should we start banning you from commenting here or reading the posts because we feel you're ruining our cherished A&A ethos? Rubbish! Same for ethos in schools.
    I think you're doing an excellent job there of illustrating what I said at the start of this post; you probably need to familiarise yourself with the meaning of the word ethos. When you have, we can have a discussion about the ethos of the A&A forum (I'd suggest reading through the forum Charter to see if we can get a feel for it) and whether my posts run contrary to it. Though obviously, in keeping with the 'ethos', we'll want to keep the discussion about the posts, rather than the poster :).
    Though I suppose, at the end of the day, it's worth pointing out there's no legal basis for protecting the ethos of A&A by refusing individuals admission, whereas there is one for protecting the ethos of schools. So perhaps it's your comparison that's rubbish?


  • Options
    #3350
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    People often get confused about what constitutes an ethos.



  • Options
    #3351
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes I'd have to agree that there is some people who would love to see religion removed from schools altogether. That's why religion and the right to teach religion in the school is very well protected in the constitution as it should be.

    Too right and with an ever growing population of pagans and particularly wiccans in the country, I look forward to the first state funded Witch School. Along with the usual 3Rs, pupils will spend the time their peers spend learning about Jesus resurrecting himself, practicing spells, making potions and beginning their personal books of shadows. All on the state euro because what's good for one religion must surely be good for all the others.:cool:

    Or of course we could just have state schools that teach factual and artistic subjects and leave the spiritual education of children as the responsibility of their parents/guardians.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3352
    Bristolscale7
    Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭Bristolscale7


    Anyone want to make an application as pastafarians for the patronage of a school? The criteria are available and it's easy enough to tick the boxes. We'd have to meet regularly for a year or so (weekly pasta eating sessions) to establish our bona fides.


  • Options
    #3353
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    ..the Louise O' Keeffe case is a good example of the fact that whilst the State was responsible (specifically vicariously liable) for what happened in the school, neither the High Court, nor the Supreme Court, or the European Court of Human Rights found that the private entities assume the States Convention protective obligations by being delegated a function; the ECtHR found that the State could not avoid its Convention protective obligations by delegating education to a private entity.
    Yes. That's what I said ;)
    The States Convention protective obligations don't actually extend to providing (or even providing for) exclusively secular education though, do they? Nor did the ECtHR find that religious education was ill-treatment that a government is inherently obliged to protect children from.
    They weren't asked those questions. Nobody asked those questions. Which makes them "strawman argument" questions.
    The Convention certainly doesn't include discrimination as a form of ill-treatment or abuse. Discrimination has it's own Article (14), which prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the Convention and legal rights provided for in national law. So long as no person is denied the right to education due to their religion the State is compliant...And we have not yet seen a single example of a child not being able to attend school (as distinct from a particular school) because of their religion.
    Why do you think discrimination is prohibited if it's not considered ill-treatment? the fact that it has its own article/paragraph shows that it is considered quite a serious form of ill-treatment.

    Your argument that "so long as a child is offered a place in a school no discrimination occurs" was concocted many years ago in an unholy alliance between the Dept. of Education and the bishops. While its important that people understand this argument, they should not accept it as a truth.
    Some day it will be challenged in a court, either in this country or in Strasbourg at the ECtHR, and IMO it will be found wanting.

    Its the same argument that was used in Alabama in the 1950's to discriminate against black kids wanting to attend white schools. The state provided black schools, ****tty ones, but still...
    The private company could however quite reasonably (and legally) say they are not responsible for fulfilling the States obligations regarding discrimination under a European Convention. Despite being funded by the State, they are only responsible for fulfilling their own obligations under Irish legislation regarding discrimination in the pool's admission policy.
    Again, you are left in the unfortunate position of trying to defend the indefensible. You are trying to be consistent with your previously stated position on religious schools, but now you are digging a hole for yourself.
    If a public swimming pool discriminated against swimmers on the basis of religion, they would quite rightly be pilloried. The management would be forced to retract the policy and apologise, or they would be fired. The public body funding the pool (eg county council) would be obliged to do this, even if there was no specific relevant equality legislation relating to swimming pools.


  • Options
    #3354
    expectationlost
    Registered Users Posts: 11,778 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    EQUATE lobbying return https://www.lobbying.ie/return/3475/equate Labour lobbying Labour on Education


  • Options
    #3355
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    On the subject of the O'Keeffe ruling, the latest news indicates the state recognises the decision of European Court of Human Rights, but intends to force individuals to spend years going through individual legal challenges anyway, if they want to obtain justice, rather than the govt. changing domestic law.
    The State has asked the High Court to strike out a decision permitting it to be sued, along with the Christian Brothers,

    We have already seen the guy who controls the former Christian Brothers schools property being appointed as president of the High Court.
    Perhaps this goes some way to explaining that "surprise" appointment?
    All this indicates an unwillingness on the part of the state to face up to the responsibilities which it now admits to having. A very hypocritical position.

    Hopefully, in a few years time, all this nonsense will just be a bad memory, and people will wonder how it could ever have happened, in a republic, that state officers could waste public money fighting a losing battle against the public and the ECtHR.


  • Options
    #3356
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,852 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    expectationlost wrote: »
    EQUATE lobbying return https://www.lobbying.ie/return/3475/equate Labour lobbying Labour on Education

    Well, this makes them far less shady than the Legatus Lackeys. :pac:


  • Options
    #3357
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    I'm just back from a meeting about a new school opening and I found myself sitting quite near some local parents who are adamant they don't want an ET school because they want their children to go to school locally and they know that the odds of them getting places diminish significantly if their local school is the only multi-dom in the city/county/surrounding counties. I've never understood before why so many parents don't want ET schools when they clearly don't care about religious education. But it makes so much sense now. They don't want a Catholic school, they don't really care about that aspect at all. All they want is for their kids to have short commutes to school, which is so completely understandable. I don't want my son to be stuck commuting either, just not quite as much as I don't want him to have to deal with religious indoctrination. But I can see why people who just don't really care about the religious side of schooling are more bothered by the idea of having to bus their kids into other communities because they can't get into school locally.


  • Options
    #3358
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    iguana wrote: »
    I'm just back from a meeting about a new school opening and I found myself sitting quite near some local parents who are adamant they don't want an ET school because they want their children to go to school locally and they know that the odds of them getting places diminish significantly if their local school is the only multi-dom in the city/county/surrounding counties. I've never understood before why so many parents don't want ET schools when they clearly don't care about religious education. But it makes so much sense now. They don't want a Catholic school, they don't really care about that aspect at all. All they want is for their kids to have short commutes to school, which is so completely understandable. I don't want my son to be stuck commuting either, just not quite as much as I don't want him to have to deal with religious indoctrination. But I can see why people who just don't really care about the religious side of schooling are more bothered by the idea of having to bus their kids into other communities because they can't get into school locally.

    Could no-one explain to them that what they really wanted then was a non-denominational school that gives priority to local kids?


  • Options
    #3359
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Could no-one explain to them that what they really wanted then was a non-denominational school that gives priority to local kids?

    That is not likely to happen though. The feeder area comprises of the whole city and suburbs and an ET secondary is likely to give priority to children from the two ET primaries. The local parents want either the school to be big enough to take in all the local kids plus the kids from everywhere else who want to go to an ET school. And as that isn't going to happen, they would prefer their local school to not attract kids from other areas.


  • Options
    #3360
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    iguana wrote: »
    That is not likely to happen though. The feeder area comprises of the whole city and suburbs and an ET secondary is likely to give priority to children from the two ET primaries.

    Who decides the feeder area?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3361
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    The Board of Education. In December all 6th class pupils in the area have to fill in the standard application listing their choices for secondary school in order of preference. This then goes out to the schools and the pupils are chosen based on each school's admissions criteria. Students are informed of which school they got into in January.

    Interestingly, Minister for Education - Jan O'Sullivan, only learned of the specifics of this tonight at the meeting she was leading in order to inform people about the process. So now the process may have to be changed as the dates she was laying out to choose a patron don't work with the secondary application process.


Advertisement