NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

Genghiz Cohen

Knasher wrote: »

I don't think that would work for two reasons. Firstly you would have bad parents who would neglect their child's education in favour of other things they could do with that money. You could probably get around this one though by having the government earmark it for schools and having it only payable to the school of the parents choice.

The second problem is that it would be unfair to children in rural areas, where class size wouldn't be large enough to support schools if they were funded in this way. To get around this you would have to have the system as a facsimile of the current one.

Thirdly, a small majority, could direct the school towards a generally undesirable ethos.

Much better if the school caters for everyone.

robindch

pljudge321 wrote: »

I'm gonna go ahead and call Poe's Law on this one.

crucamim may well be trolling. Whether or not he/she is, though, I do know catholics who do hold these kind of views and you can find them expressed equally hysterically in any issue of the Alive agitcomic.

Which suggests a more basic point about the collapse of the church in this country -- as the atheists, agnostics and moderate catholics desert the church, the influence of the fanatics and fundamentalists is growing.

It's possible to see this here on boards, where catholics, up to a few years ago, would posted occasionally, but rarely with much enthusiasm for their alleged beliefs. Since then, the number of fanatical catholics seems to increased dramatically to the extent that they may well make up the majority of catholic posters now. While it's never enjoyable to see fundamentalism take over anything, even a church, at least it has the beneficial side-effect of freezing out the moderates with an ever-increasing speed.

crucamim

getz wrote: »

in ireland its all very embarrassing,the united nations committee on the elimination of racist and discrimination[CERD] have been monitoring irelands record on the issue at meetings from 14th feb to 11th march,in the last report on ireland in 2005,the [CERD]told ireland to establish more non religious schools to ensure pupils are no longer discriminated against.because the vast majority of irish schools are privately owned and mananged,many non catholic children have no local access to schools.

The UN has no authority to tell any State how to organise its education system.

I agree with the suggestion that Ireland should give non-religious schools the same level of support as it gives religious schools. But non-Catholics have no rights in Catholic schools. Nor have Catholics any rights in schools owned by a Protestant Church.

crucamim

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Thirdly, a small majority, could direct the school towards a generally undesirable ethos.

Much better if the school caters for everyone.

A school which has anti-Catholics cannot cater for Catholics. A forest which has grey squirrels cannot cater for red squirrels.

Genghiz Cohen

crucamim wrote: »

But non-Catholics have no rights in Catholic schools. Nor have Catholics any rights in schools owned by a Protestant Church.

And when the church stops taking money out of my pocket to pay for all that, in the form of state support, that will be fine.

crucamim

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And when the church stops taking money out of my pocket to pay for all that, in the form of state support, that will be fine.

And when the State stops taking money out of my pocket to pay the total costs of the education of your children, I will agree with your view that there should be no taxpayer funding of denominational schools.

Please stop trying to infiltrate your children into Catholic schools. Provide you own schools. You have a right to refuse to pray in our churches and Catholics have a right to refuse to allow their children to attend the same school as their children. Your rights do not exist in isolation from the rights of Catholics.

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

Which suggests a more basic point about the collapse of the church in this country -- as the atheists, agnostics and moderate catholics desert the church, the influence of the fanatics and fundamentalists is growing.

As the anti-Catholics become more aggessive, more and more Catholics become tired of being pushed about.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

Please stop trying to infiltrate your children into Catholic schools.

I want atheist traffic lights everywhere. These catholic ones keep on telling me to stop.

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

And when the State stops taking money out of my pocket to pay the total costs of the education of your children, I will agree with your view that there should be no taxpayer funding of denominational schools.

So you want private Catholic schools by the sounds of it.

Please stop trying to infiltrate your children into Catholic schools. Provide you own schools. You have a right to refuse to pray in our churches and Catholics have a right to refuse to allow their children to attend the same school as their children. Your rights do not exist in isolation from the rights of Catholics.

Catholics don't have the right to sectarian public schools. So no one is proposing to infringe on anyones rights, aside from you that is.

crucamim

koth wrote: »

So you want private Catholic schools by the sounds of it.


Catholics don't have the right to sectarian public schools. So no one is proposing to infringe on anyones rights, aside from you that is.

Catholics have the same right to taxpayer funding of their schools as do Protestants, Muslims and other non-Catholics. Why are you so determined to get power over defenceless Catholic children?

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

Catholics have the same right to taxpayer funding of their schools as do Protestants, Muslims and other non-Catholics. Why are you so determined to get power over defenceless Catholic children?

I disagree, faith schools should be private schools. All public schools should be secular in nature.

CerebralCortex

crucamim wrote: »

Catholics have the same right to taxpayer funding of their schools as do Protestants, Muslims and other non-Catholics. Why are you so determined to get power over defenceless Catholic children?

:pac: You are full of the brown shtuff!

Genghiz Cohen

So you want the state to fully fund all types of religious school?
What about if I want to set up a school with a totally made up religion, is the state obliged to support that?
Is the state obliged to support a Scientology school?

Genghiz Cohen

crucamim wrote: »

Catholics have the same right to taxpayer funding of their schools as do Protestants, Muslims and other non-Catholics. Why are you so determined to get power over defenceless Catholic children?

None?

Penn

In other news: (Source)

The offers by religious congregations to meet some of the cost of the compensation bill to settle clerical child sex abuse claims “fall well short”, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn said today.

Mr Quinn said he is disappointed at the level offered by the 18 religious congregations adding it was several hundred million off the €680 million mark the Government believes should be paid.

The Ryan report, published in May 2009, recommended that the congregations concerned pay half the cost and they agreed.

Last April the Department of Education said it would ask the congregations to hand over title to properties, including schools, worth up to €200 million, to make up the shortfall.

This would help bring the total contribution by the congregations named in the Ryan report to redress costs for survivors of institutions they ran, nearer to what was recommended they pay. To date those costs to the State have come to €1.36 billion.

Today the Minister said only a quarter of the total property offers made by the congregations are of current interest to the State.

“Based on the congregations’ own valuations, these 12 properties are worth approximately €60 million,” said Mr Quinn.

“Despite the State’s call for the congregations to supplement their original offers, only two out of the 18 congregations have replied positively to make up a shortfall of some €200 million.

“One congregation has offered to give €1 million towards the costs of the National Children’s Hospital and to refund some or all of its legal costs, while another offered to transfer a former primary school.

“None of the other congregations have supplemented their original offers,” he said.

The Minister reiterated his call to the congregations to hand over appropriate school infrastructure as a way to make progress towards the 50:50 target contribution.

His comments are in response to unpublished proposals from religious congregations in relation to meeting the cost of the bill.

The Minister said he wants congregations to agree to allow the state to identify assets and property such as schools, nursing homes, playing fields and land and legally take possession of them.

There would be blocking orders on transferring title without prior consent of the Department, he said.

Officials said congregations are also being asked to transfer properties currently leased by the state or of specific interest.

“I believe that this approach affords the congregations involved the opportunity to shoulder their share of the costs of responding to the horrendous wrongs suffered by children in their care, while at the same time, recognising the legitimate legacy of their contribution to Irish education,” he said.

So it looks like the Government will attempt to take ownership of more schools than the congregations are offering.

crucamim

Barrington wrote: »

In other news: (Source)

So it looks like the Government will attempt to take ownership of more schools than the congregations are offering.

"Will attempt" might be the important part of that sentence. The Catholic Church should offer no schools and let Quinn get himself into a constitutional conflict.

Penn

crucamim wrote: »

"Will attempt" might be the important part of that sentence. The Catholic Church should offer no schools and let Quinn get himself into a constitutional conflict.

Or better yet, make the Church pay all the abuse victims, then when the Church is in really tough financial trouble, buy the schools really cheap.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

The Catholic Church should offer no schools and let Quinn get himself into a constitutional conflict.

The "catholic church" is not "the religious orders" who are the people who've failed to meet their financial and ethical obligations.

So far, the Vatican and its local representatives have refused to accept any liability for residential abuse, and it's not been brought to court to here, so neither the Vatican nor its local reps have to pay so much as a penny towards the abuse settlements.

Now, if only the previous church-friendly government hadn't caused the property crash, then the cost of school buildings (paid for by the community, not the church, in the first instance) might not have collapsed, and the current government wouldn't have to go after so many of them to make up the shortfall.

crucamim

Barrington wrote: »

Or better yet, make the Church pay all the abuse victims, then when the Church is in really tough financial trouble, buy the schools really cheap.

At least you are honest. You want to use the sex abuse scandal to steal schools from Catholics and put defenceless Catholic children into the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers and to make them sit beside anti-Catholic children.

The Catholic Church did not send out snatch squads to grab people off the streets and haul them off, kicking and screaming, to Catholic orphanages or industrial schools. The State made use of facilities which the Catholic Church could provide on the cheap, thanks to the availabiality of cheap, celibate labour. The State could delegate authority, it cannot delegate responsibility - although Ruari Quinn seems to be trying to do so.

As for child abuse in Catholic schools. There have been few allegations of that and most of those have not been proven.

The amount of money which the Catholic Church made available to compensate victims of child abuse would have been adequate if the allegations had been subjected to reasonable scrutiny. Unfortunately, the government seemed to have a policy "anyone who claims to have been sexually abused must be compensated, whether his allegations are proved or not". Just as it had a policy "anyone who claims to be a refugee, shall be granted asylum."

Moreover, the rights of victims do not exist in isolation from the rights of Catholics. I can see no reason why a Catholic child should have to endure bullying by anti-Catholic teachers or classmates, just because some priests, nuns or monks misbehaved.

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

then the cost of school buildings (paid for by the community, not the church, in the first instance).....

"Paid for by the community". I think you mean "paid for by Catholics".

yawha

Not 100% of taxpayers are Catholics, nor do 100% of taxpaying Catholics believe Catholic schools should be funded by the state.

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

At least you are honest. You want to use the sex abuse scandal to steal schools from Catholics and put defenceless Catholic children into the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers and to make them sit beside anti-Catholic children.

nobody said such a thing. continually repeating that lie doesn't make it true.

The Catholic Church did not send out snatch squads to grab people off the streets and haul them off, kicking and screaming, to Catholic orphanages or industrial schools. The State made use of facilities which the Catholic Church could provide on the cheap, thanks to the availabiality of cheap, celibate labour. The State could delegate authority, it cannot delegate responsibility - although Ruari Quinn seems to be trying to do so.

nice attempt to put all the blame on the government.

As for child abuse in Catholic schools. There have been few allegations of that and most of those have not been proven.

so no abuse occurred? the kids were lying?

The amount of money which the Catholic Church made available to compensate victims of child abuse would have been adequate if the allegations had been subjected to reasonable scrutiny. Unfortunately, the government seemed to have a policy "anyone who claims to have been sexually abused must be compensated, whether his allegations are proved or not". Just as it had a policy "anyone who claims to be a refugee, shall be granted asylum."

ah, so the kids were lying. disgusting the way you're making the church out to be the victim in the sex abuse cases.

Moreover, the rights of victims do not exist in isolation from the rights of Catholics. I can see no reason why a Catholic child should have to endure bullying by anti-Catholic teachers or classmates, just because some priests, nuns or monks misbehaved.

you're the only one suggesting that.

robindch

Wearing my mod's hat for a moment...

crucamim wrote: »

You want to use the sex abuse scandal to steal schools from Catholics and put defenceless Catholic children into the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers and to make them sit beside anti-Catholic children.

Just to clarify -- since I don't think that anybody, including the forum mods, is really sure -- this really is your point of view and you're not just having a giggle posting this kind of opinion here in A+A?

crucamim

yawha wrote: »

Not 100% of taxpayers are Catholics, nor do 100% of taxpaying Catholics believe Catholic schools should be funded by the state.

What point are you making? The level of taxpayer funding for Catholic schools was never greater than for Protestant schools. Indeed, it was often less.

And, in the ROI and in England, Catholic schools are not 100% taxpayer funded. Nor are Protestant schools. Although the Church of England is the State religion in England, its schools do not receive 100% taxpayer funding.

In Scotland, Northern Ireland and Holland, Catholic schools do receive 100% taxpayer funding. In Scotland and Holland that dates from 1918. In Northern Ireland it dates from 1992. It is quite a paradox that Catholic schools receive 100% taxpayer funding only in three Presbyterian ruled countries - and there is no religion more anti-Catholic than Presbyterianism.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Wearing my mod's hat for a moment...Just to clarify -- since I don't think that anybody, including the forum mods, is really sure -- this really is your point of view and you're not just having a giggle posting this kind of opinion here in A+A?

This is perhaps the most potent example of Poe's Law we've seen in quite a while.

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

Wearing my mod's hat for a moment...Just to clarify -- since I don't think that anybody, including the forum mods, is really sure -- this really is your point of view and you're not just having a giggle posting this kind of opinion here in A+A?

Yes. That is what I believe.

Otherwise, why is the sex abuse scandal being brought into the question of Catholic control of the schools which it owns.

David Norris was on that theme in a letter to the Irish Times published on the 24th December 2009. He described the exemption of denominational schools from the Equality laws as indefensible and then when on to mention the sex abuse scandals.

Frank Finlay was on that same theme in his column in the Irish Examiner. He seemed to be very concerned about the taxpayer bearing the costs of sex abuse. [The same Frank Finlay who supported the cause of that Pamela woman from Nigeria. He did not seem to mind the burden she imposed on the taxpayer.] Finlay suggested putting more of the compensation burden on the religious orders so that they would have to give up their schools.

And on this thread a number of posters, including a moderator, has brought the sex abuse scandals into the debate. Why?

philologos

crucamim: Why should the State have to pay for it given that the abuse was perpetrated in the RCC? I welcome the news today that Ruairí Quinn is hitting hard for the orders to pay at least half of the 1.2bn cost. Why should 16%+ of non-Catholics pay for it?

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

Yes. That is what I believe.

Thanks. And "good god" respectively.

crucamim wrote: »

And on this thread a number of posters, including a moderator, has brought the sex abuse scandals into the debate. Why?

Do you think it's a good idea to have an organization with the childcare record of the catholic church running schools?

No child's behind left, I suppose you could say.

GarIT

crucamim wrote: »

At least you are honest. You want to use the sex abuse scandal to steal schools from Catholics and put defenceless Catholic children into the clutches of anti-Catholic teachers and to make them sit beside anti-Catholic children.

I've never found an anti-catholic teacher. I've never found any teacher that was against any religion. The teachers just dont teach any religion and the parents decide the religious teachings the student recieves not the school. I have never found an anti-catholic child, only non-religious children. Nobody is asking catholic children to sit beside anybody, they can still go to any of the schools that remain catholic. We actually want catholic children to go to school with other catholics. We just don't want our non-religious children in a school with catholics.

crucamim wrote: »

The Catholic Church did not send out snatch squads to grab people off the streets and haul them off, kicking and screaming, to Catholic orphanages or industrial schools.

Maybe not in Irealand, but they certainly did in many third world countries. They have however denied the right to education to non-religious children making them drive for hours to find the nearest non-religious school.

crucamim wrote: »

The State made use of facilities which the Catholic Church could provide on the cheap, thanks to the availabiality of cheap, celibate labour.

We are greatfull to the church for the service it has provided but we now want to be able to be independant and educate our children ourselves.

crucamim wrote: »

The State could delegate authority, it cannot delegate responsibility - although Ruari Quinn seems to be trying to do so.

The people that comitted a crime are responsible. I think youll find that using the constitution and the laws of state the state can delegate responsibiliy.

crucamim wrote: »

As for child abuse in Catholic schools. There have been few allegations of that and most of those have not been proven.

Even less of the allegations have been disproven. catholic priests tend to flee the country when accused of crimes and refuse to appear in court. There is a very high number of priests practising in Africa that are wanted on sex abuse charges in Ireland. There was even one the pope himself brought to the vatican to protect. Also according to prime time the archbishop of galway is wanted for failure to appear in court in Lesotho on 17 charged of child sex abuse.

crucamim wrote: »

The amount of money which the Catholic Church made available to compensate victims of child abuse would have been adequate if the allegations had been subjected to reasonable scrutiny. Unfortunately, the government seemed to have a policy "anyone who claims to have been sexually abused must be compensated, whether his allegations are proved or not". Just as it had a policy "anyone who claims to be a refugee, shall be granted asylum."

Its very hard to prove or disprove something when the accused is on the run.

crucamim wrote: »

Moreover, the rights of victims do not exist in isolation from the rights of Catholics. I can see no reason why a Catholic child should have to endure bullying by anti-Catholic teachers or classmates, just because some priests, nuns or monks misbehaved.

Having been in a non-catholic school I've never seen someone being bullied for being a catholic. I however have no choice of which secondry school I go to and I am subject to regular bullying by preists and catholic teachers. A catholic preist once punched me because I quoted a sceintific report that proved Transubstantion to be fake.

The Mad Hatter

Catholic schools for children of Catholic parents only.

Fair enough.

But then, perhaps only taxes paid by Catholics should be used to foot the bill for the sex abuse scandals, rather than taxes paid by all citizens.

This would have the interesting knock-on effect of testing how strong peoples' faith really is.