John Waters v Atheist Ireland

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Sam - you seem to prefer the polarised view.

I think you prefer the polarised view there mate. You think that a situation where previous governments did something they should never have done, handed schools over to a single religious order and allowed them to discriminate against everyone else, should be allowed to continue and that everyone else should build around that farcical system.

We have plenty of schools, we just have to correct the mistakes made by governments when Ireland was under the control of the catholic church and remove the exemption these schools have to the already existing anti-discrimination laws

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Societies change and you seem to be blinkered by your views and not everyone has your view.

Exactly. Societies change and their public services have to change. It used to be acceptable to allow public schools to discriminate because other groups were insignificant but that's no longer the case.

CDfm wrote: »

I am seeking the most equitable and progressive route.

LOL. A situation where public schools are given a specific exemption to discrimination laws to allow them to discriminate is equitable

CDfm wrote: »

But why would I want to loose ownership and control when the ethos f the school could be eroded by political or public service influences that cannot be safeguarded that way. Pure nuts IMHO.

It's not about what you want, it's about what's right. No one wants to lose their privileged position but if it's immoral and discriminatory they're obligated to. I would think a catholic would acknowledge that.

So again, what exactly are you afraid will happen by allowing other religious groups frmo the community to hold classes alongside yours?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think you prefer the polarised view there mate. You think that a situation where previous governments did something they should never have done, handed schools over to a single religious order and allowed them to discriminate against everyone else, should be allowed to continue and that everyone else should build around that farcical system.

Which religious order?

We have plenty of schools, we just have to correct the mistakes made by governments when Ireland was under the control of the catholic church and remove the exemption these schools have to the already existing anti-discrimination laws

Return them to the parishes so.

I am really suprised at you. People do like a bit of self determination and you have no comment to make on the historic issues or politi8calissues that brought the situation about.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly. Societies change and their public services have to change. It used to be acceptable to allow public schools to discriminate because other groups were insignificant but that's no longer the case.

LOL. A situation where public schools are given a specific exemption to discrimination laws to allow them to discriminate is equitable

I dont want discrimination but I am uncomfortable with your wholesale secularisation of the school system. I am totally against vesting ownership in central government.

It's not about what you want, it's about what's right. No one wants to lose their privileged position but if it's immoral and discriminatory they're obligated to. I would think a catholic would acknowledge that.

Its not about privelege with me BTW.

So again, what exactly are you afraid will happen by allowing other religious groups frmo the community to hold classes alongside yours?

I would have no problem with that. But I would ban spaghetti and any religion classes in the Home Economics/Cookery Rooms.:D

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Which religious order?

I'm not sure I understand the question. The catholic church?

CDfm wrote: »

Return them to the parishes so.

I am really suprised at you. People do like a bit of self determination and you have no comment to make on the historic issues or politi8calissues that brought the situation about.

I don't give a sh!t what brought it about any more than I care what brought slavery about. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong now and needs to change

And I don't really care who owns the schools as long as everyone gets equal access to them and the discrimination ends

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

It pays to provide teachers but the capital funding for lots of schools was originally local church communities.

That might have happened from time to time many years ago, but it does not happen to any significant extent any more.

And of the cases where schools were built by "church communities", I believe the vast majority were not paid for out of weekly church collections, but by named, specific bequests, with governing contracts, from individuals for the sole purpose of building a school. Hence what happened with your two examples above.

In broad terms, they were not gifts from the general church to the community (or, at least, the catholics in the community), but rather they were built using specific resources which were funnelled -- just as the government's cash is these days -- by the church.

CDfm wrote: »

Your view is that the purpose was purely educational where as mine is that the objectives were educational and pastoral.

Er, well, yes -- schools are there to educate people, and they are not there to indoctrinate them.

Still less are they there to teach people by example that religious discrimination and sectarianism are acceptable in 2009.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I dont want discrimination but I am uncomfortable with your wholesale secularisation of the school system. I am totally against vesting ownership in central government.

I don't know what your big problem with central ownership is, that doesn't remove all control from the local community. And you use centrally owned public services every day of the week. You can hardly claim the church has done a bang up job running the schools up to now

Also, you seem to be completely misunderstanding me. I'm suggesting MORE religion classes, not wholesale secularisation

CDfm wrote: »

Its not about privelege with me BTW.

You keep asking me why you'd want to give up what is undoubtedly a privileged position

CDfm wrote: »

I would have no problem with that. But I would ban spaghetti and any religion classes in the Home Economics/Cookery Rooms.:D

That's all I've been suggesting, that the whole community should get equal access and catholics should not be allowed exclude others. I'm not trying to kick catholicism out of schools altogether, just to make the system fair to all

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

That might have happened from time to time many years ago, but it does not happen to any significant extent any more.

Not that many years ago.

And of the cases where schools were built by "church communities", I believe the vast majority were not paid for out of weekly church collections, but by named, specific bequests, with governing contracts, from individuals for the sole purpose of building a school. Hence what happened with your two examples above.

I dont know the figures throughout the country but I went to both of these schools so I imagine it is not that uncommon.

In broad terms, they were not gifts from the general church to the community (or, at least, the catholics in the community), but rather they were built using specific resources which were funnelled -- just as the government's cash is these days -- by the church.Er, well, yes -- schools are there to educate people, and they are not there to indoctrinate them.

In the situation I know about a large amount was raised by the Church and Church Community and all the planning permission and funding etc had to be in place behore any specific resourses would be allocated by the state.It literally took years and years.There were no big bequests or huge donations at all.

Still less are they there to teach people by example that religious discrimination and sectarianism are acceptable in 2009.

There is nothing discriminatory about it. Certainly nothing sectarian.There are pastoral issues and thats how they became catered for.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

There is nothing discriminatory about it. Certainly nothing sectarian.There are pastoral issues and thats how they became catered for.

Public schools have been given a specific exemption the discrimination laws in the Equal Status Act 2004. There most certainly is something discriminatory about it

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm confused. The school will still be in the area, it will still provide community support, the only difference is that one part of the community won't be given preferential treatment anymore

So why not give extra capitation grants to take in non Catholics then. If they are going to put pressure on existing limited resourses where school places are over subscribed ( which is normally the only reason non Catholics are not enrolled) why cant that work?

No one's saying anything about taking resources, just allowing equal access to them. The school isn't going to pick up and leave just because some extra classes are being put on


What exactly do you mean by resources?

If you remove the faith role you need to give the church back resourses to allow it continue its ministry.

Also, you might think that church communities are good things but do you think it's fair for your community to keep for itself a resource that everyone in the wider community pays for?

I didnt create the system and I am only saying what most Church Members think.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the question. The catholic church?

The Catholic Church is a religious grouping. An order like say the Carmelite Nuns would be an autonomous religous society within that Church.

I don't give a sh!t what brought it about any more than I care what brought slavery about. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong now and needs to change

And I don't really care who owns the schools as long as everyone gets equal access to them and the discrimination ends

But I do care about it as it safeguards schools from politicalisation. IMHO its a very good thing.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Public schools have been given a specific exemption the discrimination laws in the Equal Status Act 2004. There most certainly is something discriminatory about it

That would be a religious exemption I imagine like allowing orders of nuns banning men from joining.The state also have exemptions I believe.

Maybe we should adopt the German route. Each resident who has been baptised into a church is a member and pays a religious tax as part of their income tax. I have a cousin in Bremen who is paying 90 euro a month and he is an atheist and never goes to mass or church of any discription. You cant just leave if you want the tax still applies.

Germany is an ultra modern state - Switzerland does the same.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

So why not give extra capitation grants to take in non Catholics then. If they are going to put pressure on existing limited resourses where school places are over subscribed ( which is normally the only reason non Catholics are not enrolled) why cant that work?

They're already obligated to take in non-catholics, again, because they're public schools. They're not yours

But if a religious or secular group wants to have classes or events they can of course pay towards the upkeep of the schools

CDfm wrote: »

If you remove the faith role you need to give the church back resourses to allow it continue its ministry.

You keep saying resources. What resources?
Please be more specific

CDfm wrote: »

I didnt create the system and I am only saying what most Church Members think.

When what most church members think is that it's acceptable that they have to be given a specific exemption to discrimination laws to allow this situation to continue then what they think doesn't impress me much tbh

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

There is nothing discriminatory about it. Certainly nothing sectarian.There are pastoral issues and thats how they became catered for.

Jeez, like do you seriously believe that there's nothing discriminatory about what the school board did out in Diswellstown?

And, since you've avoided the question again, can you say whether or not it's a good legal principle that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But I do care about it as it safeguards schools from politicalisation. IMHO its a very good thing.

There are ways to do that without allowing discrimination. Allowing a single religious group to have role control over public schools is a form of politicisation

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Jeez, like do you seriously believe that there's nothing discriminatory about what the school board did out in Diswellstown?

And, since you've avoided the question again, can you say whether or not it's a good legal principle that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for?

I dont know the specific events in Diswellstown and have no idea about it but did read the link you posted.

The Government have done what they have done under the Constitution and its legal.

Do you think it would be a good idea for the government to seize whatever assets they want without compensation from anyone?

Seeing that the point of modern secular states has been raised many countries have religious taxes Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. So we are not alone with our quirks.

So to say this situation is specific to Ireland is a fallacy.If you want it as a public service do you want to pay for it like other countries do?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

The Government have done what they have done under the Constitution and its legal.

I'm not asking you if you think it's legal, I'm asking you a very specific question about a very specific matter of administrative principle:

Can you say whether or not it's good that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for?

A yes-or-no answer will suffice.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

That would be a religious exemption I imagine like allowing orders of nuns banning men from joining.The state also have exemptions I believe.

Maybe we should adopt the German route. Each resident who has been baptised into a church is a member and pays a religious tax as part of their income tax. I have a cousin in Bremen who is paying 90 euro a month and he is an atheist and never goes to mass or church of any discription. You cant just leave if you want the tax still applies.

Germany is an ultra modern state - Switzerland does the same.

What would that mean in terms of 98% of community schools being allowed refuse me and/or my beliefs?

I'd prefer if they stopped accepting state support instead, which would effectively turn them into private schools so I wouldn't mind them discriminating then

The thing about building more schools is that we already have enough, there's no need to build more. I think the number of people who would insist on solely catholicism in the school is a lot lower than you imagine. To be honest I can't picture it being over 20%, so a certain percentage of schools could be handed over to the educated together movement. There's no need to build more, we could just share them more equitably. I'd prefer a situation where the whole community supports and has access to the school but apparently you don't want this so this is the next best thing

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Jeez, like do you seriously believe that there's nothing discriminatory about what the school board did out in Diswellstown?

And, since you've avoided the question again, can you say whether or not it's a good legal principle that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for?

I went to that school. What happened there?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

I'm not asking you if you think it's legal, I'm asking you a very specific question about a very specific matter of administrative principle:

Can you say whether or not it's good that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for?

A yes-or-no answer will suffice.

Governments pay out a lot in grant aid as political patronage to lots of lobby groups and interest groups and service providers accross all sectors of government and mismanage lots of things.

If it was my decision I would do it differently and believe the system needs an overhaul.

I do not think the education system is perfect by a long shot and piss poor in a lot of areas. To know where to start would be a fine thing.

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I went to that school. What happened there?

I posted a link a few pages back, but in summary, the population in the area grew substantially, the DofE didn't open any new schools, the catholic "patron" of the school admitted as many catholics as he could, regardless of when the people he was pushing out of the way had applied. Basically, all the catholic were allowed to jump the queue, so the incoming 2007 (AFAIR) class was almost entirely white and catholic, while the people left without a school to go to were largely the kids of immigrants. The immigrant community were quite unhappy at this for obvious reasons.

Meanwhile, the DofE didn't contact Educate Together about managing a new school and opened up a new one and instead -- get this -- asked Archbishop Dermot Martin to become "patron" of the temporary school, which he did.

If that's not discrimination, then I'm the pope.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

To know where to start would be a fine thing.

It would be a good to start by asserting the legal principle that an institution of religion cannot discriminate against people with government money.

BTW, since you refuse to answer a direct question, I'll assume that you think it's a good thing that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is the mantra of the propgandist. It's not up to you to decide which lies are ok to teach and which aren't

I'm not advocating the teaching of lies any more than you are. I just think your self-righteous belief that you have the universal truth for everyone is laughable, and quite similar to the religious groups you mock.

It can be taught as a matter of opinion. The problem come when you say it's not a matter of opinion because it comes from the perfect creator of the universe. Teaching your opinion as if it's fact is a problem

So do you want morality taught or not? Make your mind up? Teaching morality inherently has some degree of authority to it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

At no point did I say anyone should be taught atheism, I said they should be taught facts, ie things written down in science and history books.

But you also said that people should be taught morality, which is not a fact. Btw nothing is a fact simply because it's in a history or science book.

The way I see it, if someone believes that this life is effectively insignificant because it will be followed by eternity in heaven - and it won't be - it can do nothing but devalue the only life they're ever going to get.

That may be the way you would like it to be, but there is abundant evidence of religion improving people's lives and it is thus either true or a successful placebo.

Offering salvation is great but offering a pretence of salvation is not.

Christians do not think that their God's offer is a pretence. However your form of salvation - that atheism will increase the value or quality of anyone and everyone's earthly life - is a pretence.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The reality is that God's existence has not been proven and in fact has not even been hinted towards with any degree of certainty. We cannot say for certain that he doesn't exist but the reality is that until more evidence is provided, accepting that he does exist is simply wishful thinking.

And that's where you fail to understand or care that not everyone has the same positivist worldview as you. You're pretty much saying that you want everyone to have the same beliefs as you because everyone should have the same worldview as you.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't think that "because Christians are taught Christianity that they will automatically vote the same way". I am arguing with you saying it has no effect when it clearly does. Someone who absolutely believes in the Christian god will be reluctant to, for example, legalise abortion, promote homosexuality, allow prostitution, etc.

Recent Irish history demonstrates that teaching Catholicism in school is not an effective way of making Catholics.

Is there something intrinsically better about educating people into thinking that abortion should be legalised, homosexuality should be promoted (whatever that would be), etc, than the opposite?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh but it is. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "christian right" come out of America a lot these past few years. Christianity is a whole way of living, it gives a set of social values as I'm sure you'll agree. These social and moral values represent a political ideology just as much as those of Marxism

That's just an American thing - if you think that is representative of Christians in general you're a media slave. Would Christian-influenced political views be any less objectionable if you perceived them as being left-wing?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Basically I've tried being polite to Christians who think that "you can't prove he doesn't exist" is enough reason to believe in one

That basic argument is not an attempt to make a believer out of you, it's an attempt to get you to bugger of and stop trying to convert them to atheism.

robindch wrote: »

It is possible that Jesus Christ didn't want his notions to turn into a political ideology -- he was an itinerant rabbi and would, no doubt, have been familiar with the level of civil strife that radical judaism was causing in first-century Palestine. But unfortunately, the NT is as unclear on this, as it is on most of Jesus' other thoughts.

From the NT I get the impression that the early Christians were relatively withdrawn from mainstream society, and made rules for themselves. In our current political situation, this gets muddled up because the Bible doesn't seem to provide advice for a multi-faith society. Consequently, many Christian groups, you may be surprised to know, do not involve themselves in politics at all.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

I posted a link a few pages back, but in summary, the population in the area grew substantially, the DofE didn't open any new schools, the catholic "patron" of the school admitted as many catholics as he could, regardless of when the people he was pushing out of the way had applied. Basically, all the catholic were allowed to jump the queue, so the incoming 2007 (AFAIR) class was almost entirely white and catholic, while the people left without a school to go to were largely the kids of immigrants. The immigrant community were quite unhappy at this for obvious reasons.

Meanwhile, the DofE didn't contact Educate Together about managing a new school and opened up a new one and instead -- get this -- asked Archbishop Dermot Martin to become "patron" of the temporary school, which he did.

If that's not discrimination, then I'm the pope.

robindch wrote: »

It would be a good to start by asserting the legal principle that an institution of religion cannot discriminate against people with government money.

BTW, since you refuse to answer a direct question, I'll assume that you think it's a good thing that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for.

I really do not know enough about this situation to comment -but on the face of it contacting Educate Together would have been the logical step as far as I would be concerned to manage the school.

My own view for what its worth is that Educate Together is a quite a well run organisation and for balance throughout the country there should be a roll out of ET managed schools.There should be choice where its practical and there is demand from non catholics or catholics who want there kids educated that way or people of of all persuasions or where the population warrants it.

My understanding is that it was never the case that the Catholic Church would or should be the only schooling option.Especially as the non catholic christan populations have also grown in areas too. There should be flexibility. But it should not be imposed without a reason.


I saw it from the other side recently where a strict Baptist kid wanted to move to a Catholic school and was able to with the gap year option freeing spaces. The reason being that the ethos of the school suited. He got his place.

Reality bites. I wonder how much of the decision was down to the management commitee.Also - some schools give siblings of students priority irrespective of lists( which I can understand) and priority to children from a particular area- so I would like to see what the policy was.Was there public comment from those involved?

From what you say there was cherrypicking and the D of E was in the thick of it.

The issue of religious education and policy in that area is always going to be tricky.It isn't fully solveable but the transition should be managed better.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

I'm not advocating the teaching of lies any more than you are. I just think your self-righteous belief that you have the universal truth for everyone is laughable, and quite similar to the religious groups you mock.

I think your repeated assertion that I want atheism taught in schools is laughable. I want the state curriculum taught

Húrin wrote: »

So do you want morality taught or not? Make your mind up? Teaching morality inherently has some degree of authority to it.

I'd rather it wasn't taught and was left to parents but as CDfm points out the state has a constitutional responsibility to do it. In that case I'd rather it be taught as opinion and through reason, rather than with the authority of a being that probably doesn't exist propping it up. Morality only has some degree of authority to a person who thinks it comes from God. To a secularist, if something can't be independently reasoned to be wrong, it's not wrong just because God says it is

Húrin wrote: »

That may be the way you would like it to be, but there is abundant evidence of religion improving people's lives and it is thus either true or a successful placebo.

There is abundant evidence of both improving and damaging. As I said if it solely had a placebo effect I wouldn't mind it much but it demonstrably doesn't

Húrin wrote: »

Christians do not think that their God's offer is a pretence. However your form of salvation - that atheism will increase the value or quality of anyone and everyone's earthly life - is a pretence.

I don't have a form of salvation. If people desperately need a pretence of salvation they can take their pick of religion but as far as I'm concerned we're going to rot in the ground and nothing more. It might not be pleasant but I'm not going to accept nonsense as true because I want it to be

Húrin wrote: »

And that's where you fail to understand or care that not everyone has the same positivist worldview as you. You're pretty much saying that you want everyone to have the same beliefs as you because everyone should have the same worldview as you.

No, not the same worldview as me, I just wish people would apply the same standard of evidence to their religious beliefs as they would the average court case. You wouldn't convict someone of a litter fine without proving beyond a reasonable doubt but you'll dedicate your life to one particular old book of magic stories over all other similar ones

Húrin wrote: »

Is there something intrinsically better about educating people into thinking that abortion should be legalised, homosexuality should be promoted (whatever that would be), etc, than the opposite?

I'd rather people make up their own minds on these matters than have any authority figure tell them what to think.

Húrin wrote: »

That's just an American thing - if you think that is representative of Christians in general you're a media slave. Would Christian-influenced political views be any less objectionable if you perceived them as being left-wing?

That's nice, imagine a position I might have and then insult me for it. A good way to get your point across I must say

If those people kept their religion to themselves I would find it less objectionable

Húrin wrote: »

That basic argument is not an attempt to make a believer out of you, it's an attempt to get you to bugger of and stop trying to convert them to atheism.

Says the guy who constantly posts in the atheism forum. The only christians I even talk to are the ones who go on about it the whole time, ie the ones who won't bugger off. I don't go out evangelising. And if the argument is an attempt to try to stump me so I'll leave them alone it's a pretty poor one. You'll find very few atheists who claim that God's existence can be disproven but the argument that something should be accepted as true because it fits into the infinitely large category of things whose existence cannot be disproven is ridiculous.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

It would be a good to start by asserting the legal principle that an institution of religion cannot discriminate against people with government money.

BTW, since you refuse to answer a direct question, I'll assume that you think it's a good thing that the elected government of this country does not control access to the schools it pays for.

Robin - I googled it as I had never heard of Diswellstown and it seems that as a result of the building boom the school was oversubscribed and the schools already catered for 30% non catholics.

The Church were contacted to Act as temperorary Patron for 2 years and appear to have done so reluctantly.

It also seems that the lack of an additional school places was forceeable and known to the DofE who had granted funding for a new shool.

Here is the only news link I can find

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2007/05/29/story312896.asp




TCM Archives > BreakingNews.ie > 2007/05/29 > New Catholic school to be mainly non-Catholic

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 :

FRONT | IRELAND | SPORT | WORLD | BUSINESS | ENTERTAINMENT
New Catholic school to be mainly non-Catholic

6:32:47 PM

A new primary school run by the Catholic Church will open in west Dublin even though most pupils are likely to be non-Catholic, the Diocese confirmed today.

Ninety children in Diswellstown, near Castleknock, have no school places for September as the two Catholic primary schools are full up.

Following a request from the Department of Education, the Church has agreed to act as temporary patron in a new school to accommodate the extra pupils.

“This is an exceptional situation,” a spokeswoman for the Dublin Diocese said.

“The Archbishop was asked and he felt the children had to be provided with a place to go in September.”

The Church operates a strict enrolment policy at its two Diswellstown primary schools, giving priority to Catholic children.

However, 30 % of pupils registered with the two schools are non-Catholic.

This new school – Scoil Choilm – will be located in Blanchardstown beside the James Connolly Memorial Hospital.

A spokeswoman for the Dublin Diocese stressed the patronage would only be on a temporary basis for two years, at which point the matter would be reviewed.

Meanwhile, the Department of Education said it approached Archbishop Diarmuid Martin as the Church is best placed to deal with the matter.

Junior Education Minister Brian Lenihan said the school was one of a number of initiatives to deal with school accommodation problems in west Dublin.

“I have always said that measures would be taken to ensure that there is sufficient school accommodation in Porterstown/Diswellstown and the new school is one of a number of initiatives we are taking to alleviate the school accommodation issues in the area,” Mr Lenihan said.

“I would particularly like to thank Archbishop Martin for his assistance in agreeing to undertake the patronage of the school on this occasion.”

Mr Lenihan said the Department anticipated a continuing need to increase school capacity in west Dublin due to the rapid population growth in the area.

“Schools such as Scoil Choilm and the new community national school will play a vital role in reducing the pressure on parents to find school accommodation for their children,” Minister Lenihan added.

A new community primary school in Diswellstown will also be established on a pilot basis under the auspices of County Dublin Vocational Education Committee from September, 2008.

Political hot potato that one and have any politicians been involved or have they run for the hills.

Sam Vimes

I'm sure they let non catholics in when there's room but when it comes down to picking children for limited places, non catholics lose out and that's not right.

The fact that there are so many non catholics in that school shows that the demand for unbiased schools is pretty damn high. For most people it's just easier to go along with a system that discriminates against them than to try to get new schools built. Out in the sticks it might still be that non catholics are insignificant but in urban areas they're most definitely not. It's no longer acceptable to give one group preference over all others. You can't just tell everyone who doesn't believe in your god to build their own schools because you think you have a right to a monopoly on a public service that everyone pays for

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm sure they let non catholics in when there's room but when it comes down to picking children for limited places, non catholics lose out and that's not right.

The fact that there are so many non catholics in that school shows that the demand for unbiased schools is pretty damn high. For most people it's just easier to go along with a system that discriminates against them than to try to get new schools built. Out in the sticks it might still be that non catholics are insignificant but in urban areas they're most definitely not. It's no longer acceptable to give one group preference over all others. You can't just tell everyone who doesn't believe in your god to build their own schools because you think you have a right to a monopoly on a public service that everyone pays for

But Sam thats not how the schools were set up and thats not the deal or the constitutional position either.

There is a demand for both types of school.

I do harp on about the dual role of catholic schools and I am against baptisms of convenience.

I can see both sides to this one.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But Sam thats not how the schools were set up and thats not the deal or the constitutional position either.

There is a demand for both types of school.

I do harp on about the dual role of catholic schools and I am against baptisms of convenience.

I can see both sides to this one.

The schools and the constitution were set up when the country was almost exclusively catholics (or people who claimed to be catholics to fit in) and when the catholic church ran this country. That situation has changed and so the system has to change.

Saying "we set it up to be discriminatory" is not an excuse for that situation to continue. It shouldn't have been set up that way in the first place

patrickthomas

Nodin wrote: »

However, as the church has been receiving a subsidy and government funding for decades, not to mention the near on a billion Euro subsidy of some of its members 'escapades', I think its safe to say that its received more than its given.

I would be curious to know more about this.