Catholic grip on education receives rap on knuckles

antiskeptic

One for the a(nti-)theist camp. I know the discrimination was against a Church of Ireland teacher but the general principle involved should warm the hearts of the secularists among you

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1117/1224283529263.html

Dades

Already posted here but maybe warrants it's own thread.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

One for the a(nti-)theist camp.

Or just anyone who supports equality, maybe?

Galvasean

It's about darn time. For too long they have used this 'ethos' loophole to discriminate in a way no other asociation could get away with.

totoal

Was she qualified to do the job?
Does teaching Roman Catholic religious education not make up 10% of the job of a primary teacher in a Roman Catholic school?

keppler

I wonder how much more of the tax payers money did the school board waste in its arrogance, with legal fees etc

keppler

totoal wrote: »

Was she qualified to do the job?
Does teaching Roman Catholic religious education not make up 10% of the job of a primary teacher in a Roman Catholic school?

Well obviously the INTO thought that she was qualified otherwise they wouldnt have taken the case
I wonder if she was qualified to teach the 9 times tables or long division,subtraction, fractions, barry and ann..............and on and on

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Or just anyone who supports equality, maybe?

The atheist camp are more likely than most to focus on the state-funding part of the conundrum to justify the call for equality. Neutrals would probably see the difficulties that arise due to the half/half nature of things. There is the right of Catholicism (whose schools these are) to uphold a Catholic ethos in the way it sees fit .. to be considered too.

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if Roman Catholicism kicked out state funding and funded their own schools.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is the right of Catholicism (whose schools these are) to uphold a Catholic ethos in the way it sees fit .. to be considered too.

No, there's not - not if the public is expected to pay for it.

antiskeptic wrote:

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if Roman Catholicism kicked out state funding and funded their own schools.

Catholic education would be severely crippled in Ireland. Where are they going to get all that money from? They depend on sponging off taxpayer money to teach kids how to not think. Mass attendance is at an all-time low and I'd be shocked if the Vatican felt like giving any money away.

I bet some prick of a bishop would say to his sheeple 'it's your duty to fund our schools now as well as our legal defence costs'. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Improbable

totoal wrote: »

Was she qualified to do the job?
Does teaching Roman Catholic religious education not make up 10% of the job of a primary teacher in a Roman Catholic school?

Given that they would have had to check her credentials before offering her the position, that would be a yes. They even told her that it wouldn't be a problem, showing that they knew about it.

The issue that I have more of a problem with is that religious organisations have any influence at all on public education, let alone the amount of influence they do have.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

The atheist camp are more likely than most to focus on the state-funding part of the conundrum to justify the call for equality.

Deleted User wrote: »

No, there's not - not if the public is expected to pay for it.

That didn't take long

What about the fact that the Catholic church are also paying for it. The schools are theirs after all?

Catholic education would be severely crippled in Ireland. Where are they going to get all that money from? They depend on sponging off taxpayer money to teach kids how to not think. Mass attendance is at an all-time low and I'd be shocked if the Vatican felt like giving any money away.

The question wasn't so much concerned with the hows as with the what if's

gbee

My view would be like this: If I send my child to a Catholic School, I'd expect the Catholic ethos.

However, as I don't believe in religion, it should not make a difference who taught my child, as long as they did not try to impose THEIR religion on my child.

There are difficulties as parents may not have a choice in where their child goes, despite their own religion or lack thereof.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

That didn't take long

What about the fact that the Catholic church are also paying for it. The schools are theirs after all?

Sure, just remove all public funding. Eventually, the church will realise it cannot sustain so many schools so they'll either give the schools to the public (as it should be) or make them fee-paying (good luck with that).

antiskeptic wrote:

The question wasn't so much concerned with the hows as with the what if's

The 'what if' was summed up in the first sentence. I merely expanded on that.

Improbable

gbee wrote: »

My view would be like this: If I send my child to a Catholic School, I'd expect the Catholic ethos.

However, as I don't believe in religion, it should not make a difference who taught my child, as long as they did not try to impose THEIR religion on my child.

There are difficulties as parents may not have a choice in where their child goes, despite their own religion or lack thereof.

If I sent my child to a catholic school, I'd wonder why a religious organisation is allowed to control 90% of the primary schools in the country. Actually, I lied, I wonder about that already and I don't have kids.

Given that they do control 90% of the schools and that the part of the curriculum dealing with religion was set by the catholic church, I would see that as a massive effort to impose their religion on children.

Improbable

Improbable wrote: »

Given that they do control 90% of the schools and that the part of the curriculum dealing with religion was set by the catholic church, I would see that as a massive effort to impose their religion on children.

Pretty much exactly what it is.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

The atheist camp ...

I don't know what that is - but it sounds waaay better than Jesus Camp.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about the fact that the Catholic church are also paying for it. The schools are theirs after all?

The church may own the property - but we pay the rent.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

I don't what that is - but it sounds waaay better than Jesus Camp.

Atheist camp is loads of fun, but dont forget its BYOB (Bring Your Own Baby) :pac:.

eblistic

Improbable wrote: »

the part of the curriculum dealing with religion was set by the catholic church.

I've been lead to believe that a school with a Catholic "ethos" could, and would, allow that ethos to permeate all aspects of the school day (not just religious instruction). Is that not still the case?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about the fact that the Catholic church are also paying for it. The schools are theirs after all?

I can't comment country-wide, but certainly in the schools I'm aware of, the church "built" schools by funnelling cash it received from (a) a bequest for this specific purpose (b) a local collection it, or its parishioners, happened to organize or (c) State funds received for the purpose. In no case I'm aware of, did the church pay for a school from central funds (though I'm sure there must be some instances).

The situation we have is equivalent to a conveyancing solicitor continuing to control a house for whose sale he once happened to do the paperwork.

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, just remove all public funding. Eventually, the church will realise it cannot sustain so many schools so they'll either give the schools to the public (as it should be) or make them fee-paying (good luck with that).

Since public funding comes from the public, it strikes me as fair that the funding be divvied up according to the wishes of the public (globally speaking).

So say 40% of the public said they wanted their donation to fund Catholic schools, 10% to Protestant and 50% to secular you'd end up without fee-paying Catholic/Protestant/Secular schools and all able to run according to the ethos of the parents. Happy (and fair) days.

The excess Catholic schools could be disposed of (or not) as the owners of those schools see fit.

However, you would probably also find that the State cannot sustain a school system by itself and so might well have to consider the wishes of those agencies whose contribution it so badly needs. I mean, what sense in biting the hand that feeds?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if Roman Catholicism kicked out state funding and funded their own schools.

They would go bust within a week.

eblistic

robindch wrote: »

I can't comment country-wide, but certainly in the schools I'm aware of, the church "built" schools by funnelling cash it received from (a) a bequest for this specific purpose (b) a local collection it, or its parishioners, happened to organize or (c) State funds received for the purpose. In no case I'm aware of, did the church pay for a school from central funds (though I'm sure there must be some instances).

The situation we have is equivalent to a conveyancing solicitor continuing to control a house for whose sale he once happened to do the paperwork.

This has always baffled me when it came to the Church claiming ownership of all of the schools it has been the patron of. How much has the RC itself really contributed (as opposed to local communities and the State as you say)? I'd love to see some proper research in this area. How solid are their claims legally?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

They would go bust within a week.

Which is about the aame time as it would take for the schools system to collapse. Which points to the fact that both sides need each other.

So much for simplistic The State Shall Dictate solutions.

D4RK ONION

On the question of whether she was qualified to teach Religion, the answer is probably yes, everyone who does the B.Ed tends to do the Cert in RE (Catholicism tbh) so that they can teach in over 90% of the schools in the country. I had to do it, I'm sure she did too.

As I said in the other thread, I think this is a good step towards a more secularist education system, but it's going to be a lot longer before we see the church handing any schools over, imo.

totoal

D4RK ONION wrote: »

On the question of whether she was qualified to teach Religion, the answer is probably yes, everyone who does the B.Ed tends to do the Cert in RE (Catholicism tbh) so that they can teach in over 90% of the schools in the country. I had to do it, I'm sure she did too.

Article wrote:

A TEACHER who lost the offer of a permanent post after she failed to furnish a Catholic religion certificate

I take it she didn't have the cert unless it was lost,stolen,eaten by the dog...

robindch

eblistic wrote: »

How much has the RC itself really contributed (as opposed to local communities and the State as you say)?

As above and to the best of my knowledge, the contribution has been minimal. Though you wouldn't have guessed that from what the church says about itself and its connections with the schools.

eblistic wrote: »

I'd love to see some proper research in this area.

So would I.

eblistic wrote: »

How solid are their claims legally?

Legally, I'd imagine that if you hand over your money to a registered charity, then they can do pretty much whatever they like with it.

Rabble Rabble

robindch wrote: »

As above and to the best of my knowledge, the contribution has been minimal. Though you wouldn't have guessed that from what the church says about itself and its connections with the schools.So would I.Legally, I'd imagine that if you hand over your money to a registered charity, then they can do pretty much whatever they like with it.

They built the original schools and own the land. The interest of the 19th century State in State education was exactly zero. So they are owed for the land.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

One for the a(nti-)theist camp.

No need to make it personal -- the argument is against the institutional church and its prejudice towards non-members, its pretending it owns the schools and paid for them, its indoctrination of credulous children and so on.

As we have to point out quite regularly, the argument is certainly not against rank-and-file religious people per se.

robindch

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

They built the original schools and own the land. The interest of the 19th century State in State education was exactly zero. So they are owed for the land.

From one school out in Dun Laoghaire:

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about the fact that the Catholic church are also paying for it. The schools are theirs after all?

They are? I know in my primary school the tax payer (state) payed fully for the heating, electricity bills ect. They also payed fully for the teachers wages. They also payed the full cost of supplies. Any extras that the state wouldn't pay fully for, when we were building a computer room for example, the difference was made up by fund raising activities by the students and parents. Bake sales, sports day's, those thing where the kids walk around to all the houses in the estate knock on people doors and say "will ye sponsor me me, missus!?!". That's where every penny that came into the school came from and still does come from.

Was my school the exception rather than the norm? In most other schools do the Vatican wire money over when they need to buy a couple of PC's for the computer room or a few footballs or boxes of chalk? Do they pay any of the teachers wages?

Ghost Buster

Deleted User wrote: »

No, there's not - not if the public is expected to pay for it.



Catholic education would be severely crippled in Ireland. Where are they going to get all that money from? They depend on sponging off taxpayer money to teach kids how to not think. Mass attendance is at an all-time low and I'd be shocked if the Vatican felt like giving any money away.

I bet some prick of a bishop would say to his sheeple 'it's your duty to fund our schools now as well as our legal defence costs'. :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Oh I dare say they have a few bob saved from the Magdeline laundries and in compensation they either arent paying to the kids they raped or that the tax payers are stumping up thanks to our lilly livered politicians:rolleyes:

Galvasean

You people seem to think the Church has an ample supply of spending money. It's clearly hoarding money. You're not allowed spend that.

dvpower

robindch wrote: »

I can't comment country-wide, but certainly in the schools I'm aware of, the church "built" schools by funnelling cash it received from (a) a bequest for this specific purpose (b) a local collection it, or its parishioners, happened to organize or (c) State funds received for the purpose. In no case I'm aware of, did the church pay for a school from central funds (though I'm sure there must be some instances).

Not to mention the fact that these schools then went on to employ members of religious orders at state expense.

Rabble Rabble

robindch wrote: »

From one school out in Dun Laoghaire:
[/IMG]

Lol. Particularly at the thanks.

Let me restate what I said. Read it a bit slower. "The interest of the 19th century State in State education was exactly zero"

Let me quote from your attachment.

"blah bah blah erected by voluntary contribution - 1878".

Thats an epic epic fail. It's not that one post of one school would disprove anything anyway, these would be exceptions ( and the late century saw some State involvement) but you posted a school financed by voluntary contributions. NOT the State.


The Catholic Church, whose contributions are voluntary too ( unlike taxes), built the Catholic schools we are talking about ( andI never said all schools) because the State didnt, and so it owns the land. We exist as a nation because of these schools tbh. So secularise all you want, but pay up.

Rabble Rabble

strobe wrote: »

They are? I know in my primary school the tax payer (state) payed fully for the heating, electricity bills ect. They also payed fully for the teachers wages. They also payed the full cost of supplies. Any extras that the state wouldn't pay fully for, when we were building a computer room for example, the difference was made up by fund raising activities by the students and parents. Bake sales, sports day's, those thing where the kids walk around to all the houses in the estate knock on people doors and say "will ye sponsor me me, missus!?!". That's where every penny that came into the school came from and still does come from.

Was my school the exception rather than the norm? In most other schools do the Vatican wire money over when they need to buy a couple of PC's for the computer room or a few footballs or boxes of chalk? Do they pay any of the teachers wages?

Christ sake. THe ORIGINAL SCHOOLS AND THE LAND.

robindch

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Let me restate what I said. Read it a bit slower. "The interest of the 19th century State in State education was exactly zero" [...] "blah bah blah erected by voluntary contribution - 1878". Thats an epic epic fail.

Let me quote from your original claim about the church's involvement in school building:

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

They built the original schools

And now let me compare this with what the sign says:

School in Dun Laoghaire wrote:

Kingstown Parochial Schools Erected by Voluntary Contributions 1878

As you say, an epic fail.

Nevyn

eblistic wrote: »

I've been lead to believe that a school with a Catholic "ethos" could, and would, allow that ethos to permeate all aspects of the school day (not just religious instruction). Is that not still the case?

This is very much the case, with colouring in christian pictures as part of Art class and learning hymns as part of music class.

eblistic wrote: »

This has always baffled me when it came to the Church claiming ownership of all of the schools it has been the patron of. How much has the RC itself really contributed (as opposed to local communities and the State as you say)? I'd love to see some proper research in this area. How solid are their claims legally?

Each church pays a token grant per child to the primary school it's around 10 euro a year at the start of the year which is comes from the collections. I make a point of paying it myself.

Dades

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

So secularise all you want, but pay up.

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The Catholic Church, whose contributions are voluntary too ( unlike taxes).

Given that the church doesn't pay any taxes of course, perhaps they should start paying up too?

Tim Robbins

antiskeptic wrote: »

One for the a(nti-)theist camp. I know the discrimination was against a Church of Ireland teacher but the general principle involved should warm the hearts of the secularists among you

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1117/1224283529263.html

Incredible. Fair play to the prods.

In fairness, there's a COI school near me and afaik they have a policy of taking in catholic pupils and teachers (i.e. not just their own). They also take in plenty of non religion people as well afaik. I think originally it was both COI and RC school but the Bishops wouldn't let Catholics go there because they'd be mixing with the Prods a la Trinity College.

The COIs don't seem as hardcore as the RC. And that's something I think we should respect.

ColmDawson

Thaedydal wrote: »

This is very much the case, with colouring in christian pictures as part of Art class and learning hymns as part of music class.

I couldn't resist.

keppler

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In fairness, there's a COI school near me and afaik they have a policy of taking in catholic pupils and teachers (i.e. not just their own). They also take in plenty of non religion people as well afaik. I think originally it was both COI and RC school but the Bishops wouldn't let Catholics go there because they'd be mixing with the Prods a la Trinity College.

The COIs don't seem as hardcore as the RC. And that's something I think we should respect.

correct me if im wrong here but, I think that if any school, of any religious denomination in Ireland receives state funding then I dont think that they're allowed by law to discriminate against students who wish to attend such schools.
I went to an RC secondary school in the 90's and there were plenty of kids who were protestant, there were even a few muslim kids and I think a few eastern orthodox too.
But fair play to them for hiring the catholic teachers that is definitely a sign of moving with the times.


Oh and did you have to use the word 'Prods' seriously man....

Dades

keppler wrote: »

correct me if im wrong here but, I think that if any school, of any religious denomination in Ireland receives state funding then I dont think that they're allowed by law to discriminate against students who wish to attend such schools...

They certainly are.

Equal Status Act 2000, Section 7(3)(c) wrote:

Where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0007.html

And what's more they do. I found out last weekend my cousin's daughter was denied a place in her local community school as she wasn't baptised.

keppler

Dades wrote: »

They certainly are.

And what's more they do. I found out last weekend my cousin's daughter was denied a place in her local community school as she wasn't baptised.

I must admit I found it a bit surreal reading that Act....:(
Especially since several people have told me in the recent past that they're not allowed to do this.

Your cousins daughter's situation just makes me angry, damned angry......if you dont mind me asking? what denomination is their local community school?................community school just sounds ironic now in light of what they have done!

goingpostal

Significantly, the school in the case did not rely on Section 37.1 of the Employment Equality Act in its defence. This allows a Catholic school to discriminate on the grounds of religion if it believes its ethos is under threat.

What this means is that 90% of the primary schools in this country can discriminate legally against any teacher that threatens their ability to brainwash vulnerable children into believing that Joseph Ratzinger has magic powers. Fantastic.

Also, lately, I was at a graduation ceremony at one of our wonderful Catholic Colleges of Further Education/Teacher Training Colleges. The clown in charge had a lengthy whinge about 'funding shortages' and how the government of the state was cutting back his budget. Not once did he mention the possibility of hitting up Pappa Ratzi for some wonga to run his august institution. Maybe he doesn't want to disturb Pappa Ratzi from his other important duties, like running an international criminal conspiracy to protect and conceal child rapists, in order to protect his organisations public image. Ho hum.

Tim Robbins

keppler wrote: »

correct me if im wrong here but, I think that if any school, of any religious denomination in Ireland receives state funding then I dont think that they're allowed by law to discriminate against students who wish to attend such schools.
I went to an RC secondary school in the 90's and there were plenty of kids who were protestant, there were even a few muslim kids and I think a few eastern orthodox too.
But fair play to them for hiring the catholic teachers that is definitely a sign of moving with the times.


Oh and did you have to use the word 'Prods' seriously man....

You're wrong - they are allowed discriminate.

My wife is a Prod and I use this word to wind her up if she is reading.

fisgon

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Thats an epic epic fail. It's not that one post of one school would disprove anything anyway, these would be exceptions ( and the late century saw some State involvement) but you posted a school financed by voluntary contributions. NOT the State.

Who were these voluntary contributions from? From the people of this country. They paid for the schools' contruction.

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

We exist as a nation because of these schools tbh. So secularise all you want, but pay up.

The state has paid many many times over for the cost of land and buildings through the subsidy of catholic education. The church wouldn't exist in this country in any meaningful way without primary education being paid for by the state, catholicism owes all of its power and influence to a state that has paid for everything for decades.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I found out last weekend my cousin's daughter was denied a place in her local community school as she wasn't baptised.

If it were my kid, I'd be marching up the center aisle half way through next Sunday morning's eleven o'clock mass and demanding to know from His Higness why his organization prevented my child from receiving an education in the local school.

Somebody needs to stand up to these arrogant, cosseted bastards.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I found out last weekend my cousin's daughter was denied a place in her local community school as she wasn't baptised.

On minute inspection of the text of Section 7.3 (c), I'm inclined to think that the text of the derogation is at least ambiguous, and possibly unenforceable as written.

It's late, wine has been consumed etc, etc, but I'd have thought it worth at least the price of a phonecall to the right kind of legal people.

Dades

keppler wrote: »

Your cousins daughter's situation just makes me angry, damned angry......if you dont mind me asking? what denomination is their local community school?................community school just sounds ironic now in light of what they have done!

I can only assume it's RC, but I don't know for sure. Must find out...

robindch wrote: »

If it were my kid, I'd be marching up the center aisle half way through next Sunday morning's eleven o'clock mass and demanding to know from His Higness why his organization prevented my child from receiving an education in the local school.

I'm not one for marching but I'd be tempted were I ever in that position.

Nevyn

robindch wrote: »

If it were my kid, I'd be marching up the center aisle half way through next Sunday morning's eleven o'clock mass and demanding to know from His Higness why his organization prevented my child from receiving an education in the local school.

Somebody needs to stand up to these arrogant, cosseted bastards.

The thing is while it may be the school in the local it was set up for the parish,
and the notion that you live in the area but are not part of the parish is still one that most do not under stand. Community = parish in Ireland, with many of the 'community' halls or rescource centres being that in name to claim grants when they are in fact parish halls, built on land own by the church and so subject to cannon law and when you try to us them for something which run counter to that you get refused.

keppler

robindch wrote: »

On minute inspection of the text of Section 7.3 (c), I'm inclined to think that the text of the derogation is at least ambiguous, and possibly unenforceable as written.

It's late, wine has been consumed etc, etc, but I'd have thought it worth at least the price of a phonecall to the right kind of legal people.

Yeah I kinda thought that myself

the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

How anyone could prove that the refusal of an unbaptised child is 'essential' to the preservation of the school's ethos is beyond me.
Clearly all one would have to do is express the point that the school has no objections to granting admittance to kids of other religious denominations (which I would almost certainly think they do) as proof that it is not essential.
Just thinking about what I said above....... someone on that school board must really have it in for atheists if they Deemed it fit to exclude an unbaptised child from an education.
What a sad way to be..........I dont like her atheist parents so I think i'll punish them by punishing their kid.....:(