School patronage report

lazygal

Initial report seems to be saying the right things, but no massive changes proposed, all softly, softly and doesn't inspire a lot of confidence for secular education.



Report here: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0410/primaryschoolpatronage.pdf

smokingman

It is a start though and that has to be commended.
Nice to see that they recommend that prep work for communion and confirmation (here's how to count your money.. ) should be done outside of school hours.

Dades

smokingman wrote: »

Nice to see that they recommend that prep work for communion and confirmation (here's how to count your money.. ) should be done outside of school hours.

That's a big recommend.

Of course, getting any of these things implemented will be like getting a cat into a shoebox.

crucamim

Dades wrote: »

That's a big recommend.

Of course, getting any of these things implemented will be like getting a cat into a shoebox.

I hope that you are correct.

I can see no reason why the Catholic Church should transfer ownership and control of any of its schools unless it is getting something in return. I suggest that the RC Church should transfer no school unless:-

a) there is a change in the law to permit Catholic schools to restrict admission to the children of practising Catholics;

b) adequate provision is made for Catholics who live in the catchment area of any Catholic school which is transferred to other authorities. Adequate provison would mean free transport to the nearest Catholic school.

I disagree with the suggestion that the Catholicism of Catholic schools be diluted in order to make them more inclusive. Catholic schools should be exclusive. Catholic schools esist to educate Catholic children in a Cathoic atmosphere. How can that be achieved if some of the children in the classroom are jeering anti-Catholics?

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

a) there is a change in the law to permit Catholic schools to restrict admission to the children of practising Catholics;

I doubt any government will implement such sectarian admission policies in a public school.

smokingman

crucamim wrote: »

I can see no reason why the Catholic Church should transfer ownership and control of any of its schools unless it is getting something in return.
?

Fine if maybe the church could actually pay it's share of the money still due for the child abuse reparations first.

Penn

Dades wrote: »

That's a big recommend.

Of course, getting any of these things implemented will be like getting a cat into a shoebox.

If only we could kill the cat....

Penn

crucamim wrote: »

b) adequate provision is made for Catholics who live in the catchment area of any Catholic school which is transferred to other authorities. Adequate provison would mean free transport to the nearest Catholic school.

And yet, they never provided free transport for non-Catholics to the nearest Educate Together School. It's almost like they think people should be treated equally....

Dades

crucamim, if you start again with your hardline (and somewhat paranoid) attitude to non-catholics, your next ban will be somewhat longer than the one you earned the last time.

HavingCrack

To be fair to Quinn he's the first Minister for Education to even attempt to tackle this issue in the history of the Irish state, Hanafin and Woods didn't change anything in any aspect of education as far as I am aware.

He's starting from literally ground zero, it's going to be a long uphill battle.

HavingCrack

crucamim wrote: »

Adequate provison would mean free transport to the nearest Catholic school.

Good luck with this one. This is nothing to do with religion but purely economics. Free school transport is non existent in chunks of Ireland at the minute, if you think fleets of free bus services are suddenly going to appear it's nothing but wishful thinking.

Tin Foil Hat

smokingman wrote: »

It is a start though and that has to be commended.
Nice to see that they recommend that prep work for communion and confirmation (here's how to count your money.. ) should be done outside of school hours.

It'll never happen. Outside of the obvious complaints from the catholic church, there will also be the complaints from the non-religious 'cathilocs'. I.e. those who don't set foot in a church from one end of the year to the other, may or may not give up ham samwiges on good friday and would throw a wobbler if they had to do the leg work themselves for their own kids archaic rituals.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

I can see no reason why the Catholic Church should transfer ownership and control of any of its schools unless it is getting something in return.

What about the state forgoing some of the hundreds of millions of euro it must pay to abuse victims? Money that the orders have not paid, since the majority of them have transferred their assets into "independent" trusts which are beyond the reach of the state, so long as the state continues its policy of not pursuing the orders?

MrPudding

crucamim wrote: »

I hope that you are correct.

I can see no reason why the Catholic Church should transfer ownership and control of any of its schools unless it is getting something in return.

They have already got their "something in return"; it was decades of raping children with impunity.

robindch wrote: »

[...]since the majority of them have transferred their assets into "independent" trusts which are beyond the reach of the state, so long as the state continues its policy of not pursuing the orders?

As I have said in another thread, I would not be so sure these properties are beyond the reach of the state... Where trust have been created to "defeat creditors" the courts can and will cancel the trusts; the creditors simply have to ask them to do it.

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

I would not be so sure these properties are beyond the reach of the state...

Yes, I agree That's why I said the state will have to so long as the state continues its policy of not pursuing the orders through the courts. And it seems that Ruari Quinn won't pursue the orders to overturn the corrupt transfers:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minister-says-orders-cant-pay-their-share-of-15bn-abuse-bill-3073838.html

Ruari Quinn wrote:

"Nobody wants to bankrupt the orders, who have made a positive contribution for generations to this country, for which this country is grateful, myself included."

Back to the taxpayer then.

iguana

smokingman wrote: »

Fine if maybe the church could actually pay it's share of the money still due for the child abuse reparations first.

The state should make a compulsory purchase order on every single school where abuse was covered up and pay them by writing off a portion of the €680,000,000 those orders owe the state.

Gregor Samsa

crucamim wrote: »

Catholic schools should be exclusive. Catholic schools esist to educate Catholic children in a Cathoic atmosphere.

Catholic schools can easily be all that and more, if they want. Just the State shouldn't have to fund such sectarianism. While they're running public schools in a Republic, they should have to cater for all children, in line with the Constitution.

crucamim

Dades wrote: »

crucamim, if you start again with your hardline (and somewhat paranoid) attitude to non-catholics, your next ban will be somewhat longer than the one you earned the last time.

On another thread you described my church as "other people's corrupt church" and then went on to complain about "other people's corrupt church" controlling the schools which it owns". It would seem that you have a hardline (and somewhat paranoid) attitude to Catholics.

It would seem that I am not allowed to defend my Church from attack by anti-Catholics like yourself. Is that the policy of Boards.ie?

byhookorbycrook

While the report is a start, it may well end up like the failed Epsen act and the "guidelines for supporting exceptionally able children", that is aspirational,but not implemented.

philologos

Perhaps I should remind you all that crucamim essentially argued that all non-Catholics were out to get Catholic children last time, as if we were ravenous wolves. I don't think we need to go down that line again do we?

Edit: I see Dades has pointed this out already!

Sarky

crucamim wrote: »

It would seem that I am not allowed to defend my Church from attack by anti-Catholics like yourself.

No, we'd just like you to stop being scary crazy.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

It would seem that I am not allowed to defend my Church from attack by anti-Catholics like yourself. Is that the policy of Boards.ie?

In this forum, you are welcome to try to defend the catholic church, the church of the flying spaghetti monster, the Renewed "Hallelujah and Pass The Collection Bucket (Silent Collection only!)" Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ the Eternal King of of West Cabra and My Soul and So Can You!(tm), or indeed, just about any church, political movement or organization you like.

What you are not allowed do is rant on in a paranoid fashion about "anti-catholics" behind every bush, especially the bush behind which reside your friendly A+A moderators who are doing their best to keep the forum's tone as relaxed as possible.

UDP

crucamim wrote: »

I hope that you are correct.

I can see no reason why the Catholic Church should transfer ownership and control of any of its schools unless it is getting something in return. I suggest that the RC Church should transfer no school unless:-

....

I disagree with the suggestion that the Catholicism of Catholic schools be diluted in order to make them more inclusive. Catholic schools should be exclusive. Catholic schools esist to educate Catholic children in a Cathoic atmosphere. How can that be achieved if some of the children in the classroom are jeering anti-Catholics?

Awwh, the catholic spirit of love and peace alive and well as ever...

---

I think Ruairi has to be given some slack here. Like said earlier this has never been tackled before even though it was long overdue. It is better he tries the more gentle route first but I imagine the religious orders will just delay and delay in the hope that Ruairi is replaced by someone more sympathic to their cause or another spineless minister in a few years time.

crucamim

phutyle wrote: »

Catholic schools can easily be all that and more, if they want. Just the State shouldn't have to fund such sectarianism. While they're running public schools in a Republic, they should have to cater for all children, in line with the Constitution.

Does that mean that you object to the taxpayers funding Protestant schools - even though those schools tend to have much more restrictive admission policies than their Catholic counter-parts?

crucamim

robindch wrote: »

What about the state forgoing some of the hundreds of millions of euro it must pay to abuse victims? Money that the orders have not paid, since the majority of them have transferred their assets into "independent" trusts which are beyond the reach of the state, so long as the state continues its policy of not pursuing the orders?

I think that the Catholic religious orders should not have paid anything. Catholic schools, orphanages etc did not send out snatch squads to grap people from the streets and haul them, kicking and screaming to Catholic schools or orphanages. It was the State which put those people into Catholic institutions (and, sometimes, Protestant institutions). The State did not provide its own facilities and made use of facilities which the RC Church could provide on the cheap - thanks to cheap celibate labour. The State can delegate authority, it cannot delegate responsibility.

Moreover, the money which the Catholic religious orders did provide could probably have paid for the compensation of all the proven victims. Unfortunately, the government adopted a policy that anyone who claimed to be a victim was a victim.

Can you explain why all Catholics should be punished for what some priests and monks did? Have you ever suggested that all Protestants be punished for the burning of Bombay Street?

MrPudding

crucamim wrote: »

I think that the Catholic religious orders should not have paid anything. Catholic schools, orphanages etc did not send out snatch squads to grap people from the streets and haul them, kicking and screaming to Catholic schools or orphanages. It was the State which put those people into Catholic institutions (and, sometimes, Protestant institutions). The State did not provide its own facilities and made use of facilities which the RC Church could provide on the cheap - thanks to cheap celibate labour. The State can delegate authority, it cannot delegate responsibility.

So, because the victims just kind of appeared in the various institutions it was ok for the priests and cleric to rape them? Really? Is that actually what you think? Your precious church, the despicable and disgusting organisation that it is, has no culpability simply because, as far as we know, it did not engage in kidnapping?

crucamim wrote: »

Moreover, the money which the Catholic religious orders did provide could probably have paid for the compensation of all the proven victims. Unfortunately, the government adopted a policy that anyone who claimed to be a victim was a victim.

Irrespective of what you think of the compensation scheme, the church agreed to pay a portion. It was a disgustingly small portion, but they still did not pay it. I am not expert on the scheme but I think that majority of the payout were quite small, the larger payout were not given willy nilly. Have you considered that perhaps the reason the compensation bill is so high is because your precious priest and clerics abused so many people?

crucamim wrote: »

Can you explain why all Catholics should be punished for what some priests and monks did? Have you ever suggested that all Protestants be punished for the burning of Bombay Street?

This has been pointed out to you before, but it seems to be having a problem getting past the paranoia and bigotry. “All Catholics” aren’t being asked to pay, the church, which was the employer of the rapists is being asked to pay. Although, to be strictly accurate, currently all catholics are being asked to pay, but that is because they are tax-payers. As your church has failed to pay what it agreed the tax-payer is having to pick up the bill. Whilst I expect the irony will be lost on you, the only reason “all catholics” are having to pay the compensation bill is because your disgusting church is refusing to pay its share.

MrP

magicbastarder

Dades wrote: »

Of course, getting any of these things implemented will be like getting a cat into a shoebox.

analogy fail.
getting a cat into a shoebox is simple. place the shoebox in front of the cat. watch as the cat climbs into the shoebox.

Gregor Samsa

crucamim wrote: »

Does that mean that you object to the taxpayers funding Protestant schools - even though those schools tend to have much more restrictive admission policies than their Catholic counter-parts?

Yes, of course. I object to State funding for any kind of exclusivity. If taxpayers are funding it, then taxpayers should be able to avail of it, regardless of religion.

Dades

Thread going seriously off-topic with talk of institutional abuse.

Back on track people, or posts will be removed.

Gregor Samsa

magicbastarder wrote: »

analogy fail.
getting a cat into a shoebox is simple. place the shoebox in front of the cat. watch as the cat climbs into the shoebox.

As an owner of both a cat and a shoebox, I can attest that this is true - but only if you don't actually want the cat to go in the shoebox. As soon as you want it to go in, the shoebox's cat-repellent properties will collapse from the wave function, and nothing will get the moggy in the box.

robindch

phutyle wrote: »

As soon as you want it to go in, the shoebox's cat-repellent properties will collapse from the wave function, and nothing will get the moggy in the box.

And if you close the box, how will you ever know if the cat's alive?

robindch

BTW, briefly back on topic, here's the Irish Times on the patronage report:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0411/1224314607471.html

Irish Times wrote:

NINETY PER cent of State-funded primary schools are still controlled by the Catholic Church [...] despite the church’s loss of authority and influence in the wake of child abuse scandals. The spectacle of immigrant children being refused admission on religious grounds gave rise to public controversy and demands for change in 2007. It had little effect. On taking office last year, Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn spoke about removing half of the 3,000 primary schools from Catholic Church control in order to provide for multidenominational and non-denominational education and the needs of a rapidly changing society. An advisory group he established on patronage and pluralism has [...] however, urged a more gradualist approach.

[...]

Delay is the great enemy of reform. The longer the delay, the more likely it is that political energy will drain away and little will change. Census returns published last week show that one in six residents was born outside the State and the demand for primary school places is rising. Integration at all levels is the key to an open and tolerant society. It is, however, a two-way street in which the receiving society must be prepared to change [...] as indeed should new arrivals. Traditionally, discussions involving the control of schools and content of education take place behind closed doors. On this occasion, a balanced and respectful approach has been taken to the wishes of parents. Control is not, however [...] the only issue. One-quarter of young men are functionally illiterate on leaving school. That is unacceptable. The advisory group rightly suggests that religious instruction should no longer be regarded as the most important subject on the curriculum.

Delirium

via Atheist Ireland twitter account.

Jane Donnelly, Atheist Ireland Education Policy Officer, discussed the Forum on Patronage report with David Quinn

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/174/tuesday/2/popup

starts at 5.30 into audio.

EDIT: Mr. Quinn says secularist = non-religious :rolleyes:

robindch

thejournal.ie poll -- should religion have a role in education?

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-religion-have-a-role-in-education-413659-Apr2012

Currently running 75% against.

Galvasean

koth wrote: »

EDIT: Mr. Quinn says secularist = non-religious :rolleyes:

For someone who constantly leaps to the Pope's defense yelling, "CONTEXT!!!" he sure is good at completely misrepresenting others. Quinn is obviously a well learned, articulate and intelligent man. The only way he could possibly make such a glaring error in relation to something he claims expertise in would be to do it on purpose. To that end he must be lying if he says that secularists are simply the non-religious. I bet he'd be secularism's best buddy if he woke up tomorrow and 80% of the Irish population self identified as Muslims.

robindch wrote: »

thejournal.ie poll -- should religion have a role in education?

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-should-religion-have-a-role-in-education-413659-Apr2012

Currently running 75% against.

I'm surprised the against is so high considering the vagueness of the question. A much better question would be, "Should religion continue to have the same role in education that it does now?" Cuts out the ambiguity.

UDP

Galvasean wrote: »

For someone who constantly leaps to the Pope's defense yelling, "CONTEXT!!!" he sure is good at completely misrepresenting others. Quinn is obviously a well learned, articulate and intelligent man. The only way he could possibly make such a glaring error in relation to something he claims expertise in would be to do it on purpose. To that end he must be lying if he says that secularists are simply the non-religious. I bet he'd be secularism's best buddy if he woke up tomorrow and 80% of the Irish population self identified as Muslims.

and here was me thinking lying is a sin according to his religion.

lazygal

UDP wrote: »

and here was me thinking lying is a sin according to his religion.

Ah he can always go to confession! Or have a 'mental reservation'.

darjeeling

To add to Koth's and Galvasean's posts, here's David Quinn's comment:

David Quinn wrote:

"The secular parents - the non-practicising - now of course secular doesn't necessarily mean you're anti-religion, it may simply mean you don't actually practise one yourself. But these parents are very happy to send their kids to Dutch schools with a religious ethos"

He's using 'secular' in the sense of anything that isn't explicitly to do with religion. He doesn't seem to want to acknowlege the existence of secularism, the idea that the state and its agencies should be separate from any religious institution or faith. It's hard to see how any parent who held strong secularist views would be very happy to see state-funded religious schools.

I think there's very little chance of getting an exclusively secular state education system here, as that's not happened in elsewhere in Europe, even in countries with a long tradition of secularism and lower levels of religious belief. But at the same time, I think the Irish Times is right to warn reformers against aiming too low when it comes to working out just how many state schools the churches get to retain, and whether and how religious instruction is included in the curriculum in state-funded schools remaining under church patronage.

crucamim

MrPudding wrote: »

Your precious church, the despicable and disgusting organisation that it is,
MrP

Moderator

Would it be within the rules of this forum to describe a Protestant Church as a "despicable and disgusting organisation"?

Is Boards i.e. an anti-Catholic forum? Yes or No.

robindch

crucamim wrote: »

Would it be within the rules of this forum to describe a Protestant Church as a "despicable and disgusting organisation"?

Have a read of the forum charter here.

The short answer to your question is "yes, of course it's ok" -- a church is an organization, not an individual, and being an organization, is open to pretty much whatever description a poster wishes to apply to it. The description will stand or fall, and the corresponding reputation of the poster, according to the degree of evidence produced by the poster to back up the claim.

It's no different to you claiming that "Boards is an anti-Catholic forum", a claim which you have so far at least, singularly failed to justify.

Galvasean

crucamim wrote: »

Is Boards i.e. an anti-Catholic forum? Yes or No.

From a strictly business POV it would be bad business for boards.ie, as Ireland's largest indigenous website, to be anti-Catholic at its heart. Alienating a large chunk of the Irish people (the website's target demograph) would be a terrible idea.

Zamboni

Paul Rowe from Educate Together on the report here.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0412/1224314639536.html

I do think it's funny that some still think this is a bad idea when clearly the majority (if not all) of the various bodes are both represented and in favour of change.

Gregor Samsa

crucamim wrote: »

Would it be within the rules of this forum to describe a Protestant Church as a "despicable and disgusting organisation"?

To paraphrase Fr. Ted at the Lovely Girls competition:

- Isn't the Catholic Church a despicable and disgusting organisation?"

- Careful there, Ted. That might offend the Catholics.

- Right, oh. Of course, they're all despicable and disgusting organisations.


The more serious answer would be - any organisation, regardless of affiliation, denomination or lack there of, can be called out for harsh criticism if it's warranted. I don't see why you keep asking if "saying x about protestants" would be tolerated, as if you think it wouldn't be.

RichieC

Once the christies lose their grasp on children's education it is the death of the church in the long term. They won't go down without a fight (moan)

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

From a strictly business POV it would be bad business for boards.ie, as Ireland's largest indigenous website, to be anti-Catholic at its heart. Alienating a large chunk of the Irish people (the website's target demograph) would be a terrible idea.

boards.ie isn't anti-Catholic. But A&A is. In a way, that's not exactly surprising. Catholicism is the dominant religious ethos here, which means it's there to be shot at (so to speak) by people who don't have a religious world view.

'n'all'n'anyways, that's my two cents' worth, albeit off-topic to the thread.

crucamim

Deleted User wrote: »

boards.ie isn't anti-Catholic. But A&A is. In a way, that's not exactly surprising. Catholicism is the dominant religious ethos here, which means it's there to be shot at (so to speak) by people who don't have a religious world view.

'n'all'n'anyways, that's my two cents' worth, albeit off-topic to the thread.

That raises the question. Why is a thread about the School Patronage Report only in the A&A forum? Do practising Catholics have no right to opinions on an attempt to take over some Catholics schools and to dilute the Catholicism of what would be the remaining Catholic schools?

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

That raises the question. Why is a thread about the School Patronage Report only in the A&A forum? Do practising Catholics have no right to opinions on an attempt to take over some Catholics schools and to dilute the Catholicism of what would be the remaining Catholic schools?

because the OP chose to start the thread here. It's really that simple.

It's not some anti-Catholic conspiracy that you seem to think it is.

And anyone is free to post on the thread (whatever their religious affliations) as long as they don't breach the charter.

Sorry for bursting your oppressed Catholic bubble :rolleyes:

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

That raises the question. Why is a thread about the School Patronage Report only in the A&A forum? Do practising Catholics have no right to opinions on an attempt to take over some Catholics schools and to dilute the Catholicism of what would be the remaining Catholic schools?

Because Ruairi Quinn and Eamon Gilmore have banned catholics from starting their own thred where ever they like.
Give it a go and before you have the title typed out Black clad Ninja Atheists will burst through your door and beat you up and leave a burning effigy of John Waters in your front garden.









...is that what you want to hear??

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

boards.ie isn't anti-Catholic. But A&A is.

A+A is not anti-catholic, it's anti-catholicism. In the same way that it's anti-islam, anti-protestant, anti-scientology, anti-religion in general.

crucamim wrote: »

That raises the question. Why is a thread about the School Patronage Report only in the A&A forum?

As koth points out, it's here because somebody started a thread on it. I'm sure our friends in the other religious forums will be happy to discuss the topic too.

crucamim wrote: »

Do practising Catholics have no right to opinions [...]

You have a right to whatever opinion you want to. What you don't have is a right to do it to post it on a computer system, like boards.ie or any other internet discussion forum, which belongs to somebody else who makes the rules about what happens on their property. Any more than you have a right to arrive into somebody's front room and start declaiming opinions there, or for somebody else to arrive into your front room and start waffling away as they wish.

robindch

Ghost Buster wrote: »

[...] a burning effigy of John Waters [...]

Now there's an idea

Sarky

Is uninformed bile even flammable?