Why has no-one ever taken the Department of Education to court?

Gambler

Myself and my wife are expecting our first child at the moment and one of the discussions we've had is about baptism, neither of us wants to baptise the child but if we want to get our child into a school that doesn't take an hour+ to get to to and then another 2 hours+ to get to work from then we probably don't have any choice.

If it was down to just me I'd do the round trip but in reality it's my wife who is going to have to deal with the commute more often than me and she would prefer to take the path of least resistance.

It occurred to me that in any other situation a person being stopped from participating on the basis of their religious belief would not just cause outrage but it would be challenged in the courts.

How do you think the public or the courts would react if any of the following groups\organisations asked potential members what their religion was and then gave priority in a way that made it next to impossible for non-religious members to join:

Sports Clubs
Unions
Retail Outlets
Pension Funds
Insurance Companies
Government Agencies
Employers

I just find it mad that this goes on in a modern society and that no-one has challenged it legally. If someone took the department of education to court surely they couldn't win an argument that says it's OK for a state funded school to discriminate against my kid on the basis of their family's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Even if the case was lost in Ireland on the basis of Irish legislation then surely the European court of human rights would find against the department..

"The right to education is a universal entitlement to education, a right that is recognized as a human right.

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

Am I missing something? Has there already been a court case or is there one in progress at the moment?

MrStuffins

You go ahead! Post back here and let us know how you get on!

Gambler

If I could afford it I would..

Calibos

Basically it boils down to the fact that the people with the money to take it to court are the people that can afford to send their kids to fee paying schools and they value the reputation of the School over the Denomination or religious ethos of the school.

ie. Someone with the money to fight the case has the money to send his kids to Blackrock College and values the cache of sending his kids to Blackrock college and the quality of education they'll get there. He is not going to spend money fighting a case to force the government to set up a Blackrock Community college if you get me.

TheChizler

Has there ever been an attempt at some class action type of thing?

Mr. Incognito

Well it's a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and historical facts.

Historically the state did not have the resources to put into Education and was happy for religious orders to step in. The religious orders get to indoctrinate a new generation and the state gets cheap teachers.

The way things have gone the State is running a lot of these schools but they are still held on trust and on church lands.

There is an argument that the church should gift these lands to the state as compensation for clerical abuse etc but the state turned a willfull blind eye to most of it.

Anyway, you are saying that you don't want your kids baptised. Fine. Don't.

If you think that religious schools give the best educations and you are forced or co-erced into it then you are obviously not that adament on your objections or you could place your child in a non denominational school or home school them.

Bring an action against the state?? On what grounds?? That you, who already have a free choice to place your child in a non denominational school refuse to do so and the State should force schools that are in private hands to accomodate you and your non religious beliefs?? Not going to happen my friend.

Schools can legally discriminate because, if you don't want a religious school, fine, no problem- off with you to another school of your choosing. This has been upheld in the Supreme court so yes, schools can discriminate. Also, religion is affirmed in the Irish constitution so best of luck shooting that one down.

I am totally anti catholic, not militant athiest as that doesn't fit logically for me either. I don't believe in a sentient "God" per se, but I do believe in a cosmic energy if you will so I have no Catholic bias here but as a lawyer I think you sense some sort of entitlement that the country must bow down to your religious non belief, that's dogma my friend and raising your kid in a doctrine of no religion is just brainwashing them in the other extreme.

Most people just roll with it, let the kid suck it up, let religion class was over them and at least they are getting a bastard history lesson in the process.

If you want to fight da power, well, forget it man. Listen to your wife.

Paparazzo

What if you live in the arse end of kerry, and the only non denominational school is an hour and a half drive away? Sure, you don't have to put your kid in the local catholic school, you have the choice of driving 3 hours a day to primary school?

I wonder how often non-catholic kids get refused? A mate of mine child was refused from a school in Balgriggan because he wasn't baptised. He was asking what can he do. Someone advised him to ask for it in writing (it was a phonecall originally) and low and behold, a place became available.

MrPudding

Gambler wrote: »

If I could afford it I would..

I tihnk this is likely what it comes down to. Realistically someone doing this is unlikely to get satisfaction in Irish courts, so ultimately it will have to go to Europe.

The religious have some very wealthy organisations which fight cases on the behalf of the religious, like the Christian Institute in the UK, as far as I am aware there is nothing similar for the non-religious.

Perhaps a group like Atheist Ireland should try something like that? It is certainly something I would consider donating some money to. One test case is all it would need.

MrP

lazygal

AFAIK we got a derogation from Europe to allow schools to discriminate on religious grounds due to the 'unique' nature of the Irish school system. Does anyone remember cases of boys in Limerick being refused places in secondary schools a few years back? Court cases were mentioned but it seems no court can legally force a school to accept a child or meddle with the patronage of the school. All politicians and parents can really do is lobby for a new school, which shows how ridiculous the denominational system is.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Gambler wrote: »

If I could afford it I would..

Eh with your username why not put everything you own on 0 at 35-1 and when it comes in buy your own school.Simple game.

Until then listen to your wife.if it is for your kids benefit why deprive them of a good education just to prove a point.

Gambler

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Anyway, you are saying that you don't want your kids baptised. Fine. Don't.

If you think that religious schools give the best educations and you are forced or co-erced into it then you are obviously not that adament on your objections or you could place your child in a non denominational school or home school them.

Bring an action against the state?? On what grounds?? That you, who already have a free choice to place your child in a non denominational school refuse to do so and the State should force schools that are in private hands to accomodate you and your non religious beliefs?? Not going to happen my friend.

And if the only choice of non-denominational school within any sort of reasonable range of me accepts less than 50% of applications because it's heavily over subscribed. And the local schools within range of us have a policy that means that registration preference is given to catholic first, other christian denominations, minority religions third and after all of that non religious families last meaning that there has been next to no spaces for any non religious families anywhere within the last few years.

Yes I may well manage to get a place because I am being as proactive as possible but I still have a large likely hood of not getting a place in any of our local schools and ending up with no choice other than to baptise of worst case scenario travel for up to 4 extra hours a day to get our child to school.

Also I have absolutely no issue with a truly private school making decisions about who does and doesn't get to join but most of the schools in my area are public schools who receive the majority of their funding from the state and voluntary parental contributions.

And home schooling is not an option - we both need to work so we can afford to pay our mortgage. We would love to be in a situation where one parent could be a full time parent and if that was the case then maybe home schooling would be an option but it isn't.

My main issue is this - there is no other area of Irish society where it would be allowable to discriminate on the basis of religion so why is education which is such an important part of a childs development an area where religious discrimination is not just allowed but accepted by everyone (even the atheists and agnostics on this forum seem to be of the general opinion that I should just baptise and put up with it or stick to my guns and end up spending half my life getting too and from a school in a completely different area of the county.) as the way things have always been done so why challenge it.

Gambler

And as a side note my sister ended up having no choice but to baptise her child because it was less than 2 weeks to the start of term and she had been unable to find any school willing to take her son at all. The department of education had said that they would try and find her a school but there was no movement and she was running out of time so was left with no choice at all.

Admittedly she had (perhaps stupidly) thought that in this day and age it wouldn't really be that big an issue and that a school that had 4 generations(!) of our family attending would find a place for her if she applied at the same time as everyone else so she hadn't given herself enough options but still the fact was that the school found a place for her 2 weeks before term started once she baptised but weren't willing to give her a place otherwise..

robindch

Gambler wrote: »

[...] still the fact was that the school found a place for her 2 weeks before term started once she baptised but weren't willing to give her a place otherwise..

If it were me -- which it's not, so this suggestion is entirely theoretical -- I'd be tempted to name and shame.

It's useful that people know and understand that this kind of systemic abuse is taking place.

Zamboni

Gambler wrote: »

Myself and my wife are expecting our first child at the moment and one of the discussions we've had is about baptism, neither of us wants to baptise the child but if we want to get our child into a school that doesn't take an hour+ to get to to and then another 2 hours+ to get to work from then we probably don't have any choice.

If it was down to just me I'd do the round trip but in reality it's my wife who is going to have to deal with the commute more often than me and she would prefer to take the path of least resistance.

It occurred to me that in any other situation a person being stopped from participating on the basis of their religious belief would not just cause outrage but it would be challenged in the courts.

How do you think the public or the courts would react if any of the following groups\organisations asked potential members what their religion was and then gave priority in a way that made it next to impossible for non-religious members to join:

Sports Clubs
Unions
Retail Outlets
Pension Funds
Insurance Companies
Government Agencies
Employers

I just find it mad that this goes on in a modern society and that no-one has challenged it legally. If someone took the department of education to court surely they couldn't win an argument that says it's OK for a state funded school to discriminate against my kid on the basis of their family's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). Even if the case was lost in Ireland on the basis of Irish legislation then surely the European court of human rights would find against the department..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_education

Am I missing something? Has there already been a court case or is there one in progress at the moment?

I think there is a case against the exemption in the Equality Act that allows denominational schools to operate a catholic/COI/etc first basis and I think it could be sucessful although not in Ireland. It would have to go through Europe.
If you have the means to fight the good fight I wish you well.
Mr Incognito should change his user name to Mr Status Quo.

Bannasidhe

I'm not a lawyer, but surely there must be grounds to challenge the constitutionality of not allowing unbaptised children into State funded schools.

Article 44 of the 1937 Constitution states:

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Is State funding of religious schools - in particular when the State offers no non-denominational alternative - not endowing a particular religion by funding their indoctrination of children?


3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

Couldn't be clearer. If a State funded school refuses admission on the grounds of religion - or lack of - then it contravenes the above.

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

So my reading of that is the if a school is funded by the State but refuses to admit an unbaptised child it is also in contravention of that.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Well it's a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and historical facts.

Historically the state did not have the resources to put into Education and was happy for religious orders to step in. The religious orders get to indoctrinate a new generation and the state gets cheap teachers.

The way things have gone the State is running a lot of these schools but they are still held on trust and on church lands.

There is an argument that the church should gift these lands to the state as compensation for clerical abuse etc but the state turned a willfull blind eye to most of it.

Anyway, you are saying that you don't want your kids baptised. Fine. Don't.

If you think that religious schools give the best educations and you are forced or co-erced into it then you are obviously not that adament on your objections or you could place your child in a non denominational school or home school them.

Bring an action against the state?? On what grounds?? That you, who already have a free choice to place your child in a non denominational school refuse to do so and the State should force schools that are in private hands to accomodate you and your non religious beliefs?? Not going to happen my friend.

Schools can legally discriminate because, if you don't want a religious school, fine, no problem- off with you to another school of your choosing. This has been upheld in the Supreme court so yes, schools can discriminate. Also, religion is affirmed in the Irish constitution so best of luck shooting that one down.

I am totally anti catholic, not militant athiest as that doesn't fit logically for me either. I don't believe in a sentient "God" per se, but I do believe in a cosmic energy if you will so I have no Catholic bias here but as a lawyer I think you sense some sort of entitlement that the country must bow down to your religious non belief, that's dogma my friend and raising your kid in a doctrine of no religion is just brainwashing them in the other extreme.

Most people just roll with it, let the kid suck it up, let religion class was over them and at least they are getting a bastard history lesson in the process.

If you want to fight da power, well, forget it man. Listen to your wife.

Just roll with it?

Forget about fighting the power?

It's because of attitudes like yours that so many kids weren't given reprieve from rape and abuse for so long in this country.
Your support of discriminating schools which are funded by the state (and therefore, OUR taxes) is pretty sickening, to be honest.

magicbastarder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is State funding of religious schools - in particular when the State offers no non-denominational alternative - not endowing a particular religion by funding their indoctrination of children?

the state does fund non-denominational schools, though.
the problem is the schools are not actually state-run; they are state funded. the boards running the schools are usually comprised of parents, but in the case of a standard national school, headed by a member of the clergy.

a lazy response would be 'well, non-religious people can start their own schools', but obviously that's a facile response.

Dades

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Your support of discriminating schools which are funded by the state (and therefore, OUR taxes) is pretty sickening, to be honest.

Got any kids, Jimmy? Or a catholic wife? Or live in an area devoid of multi-denominational schools? It's easy to be principled with someone else's life.

What's sickening are the people who ticked catholic on the census who are nothing of the sort. That was what this cause needed not to happen.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Dades wrote: »

Got any kids, Jimmy? Or a catholic wife? Or live in an area devoid of multi-denominational schools? It's easy to be principled with someone else's life.

What's sickening are the people who ticked catholic on the census who are nothing of the sort. That was what this cause needed not to happen.

No, no, and no. Though I personally couldn't be in a relationship with someone who was religious, it'd cause too much conflict. My OH is a lapsed protestant, she'd describe herself as atheist.

I still don't agree with just giving in to the norm that the church has created, even if it's the easier option. It's easy to be principled with someone else's life, but while it's not easy to include some principles in my own life, I've still done it.

I completely agree that default 'catholics' are to blame for the status quo this church still enjoys in the country, but I simply can not and will not agree with it being acceptable to just lie down and accept it for a quiet life.

Mr. Incognito

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, but surely there must be grounds to challenge the constitutionality of not allowing unbaptised children into State funded schools.

Article 44 of the 1937 Constitution states:

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Is State funding of religious schools - in particular when the State offers no non-denominational alternative - not endowing a particular religion by funding their indoctrination of children?


3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

Couldn't be clearer. If a State funded school refuses admission on the grounds of religion - or lack of - then it contravenes the above.

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

So my reading of that is the if a school is funded by the State but refuses to admit an unbaptised child it is also in contravention of that.

A privately run school on private grounds that is run by religious orders is NOT the State.

Mr. Incognito

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

Just roll with it?

Forget about fighting the power?

It's because of attitudes like yours that so many kids weren't given reprieve from rape and abuse for so long in this country.
Your support of discriminating schools which are funded by the state (and therefore, OUR taxes) is pretty sickening, to be honest.

The irrelevance and sensationalism and downright stupidity of that post doesn't even merit the dignity of a response. I don't feed trolls.

Let me boil your argument down to language you can understand.

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

To which the Adults in the room go, I'm sorry but no. There are other children that want to play.

Bannasidhe

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

A privately run school on private grounds that is run by religious orders is NOT the State.

Then the privately run school on private grounds shouldn't get any funding from the State - simples.

Ironically, I went to a private school which actually received no funding from the State whatsoever - it was the only way my parents could be sure my education was free from any form of religious indoctrination.

Mr. Incognito

Then the parents would end up picking up the tab by paying tuition fees of the order of 10-20K a year.

That's what would be the natural result.

I don't believe in Religion in schools but it is a historical hangover because, and credit where it is due historically the Christian Brothers and their ilk were the ONLY education model the fledging state could afford. This country was rich for 10 years and flat broke for 90.

Jumping up and down and demanding special treatment because you are athiest is arrogant and stupid. If you don't want a religioius school, don't send your kids to one. If it is further away, that's it. You wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia and expect them to make concessions for Christian kids, you would send them to a Christian or non denomination school. Athiests are in the minority in this country. Tough. Deal with it. If it's awkward, well I'm sorry. That's life.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The irrelevance and sensationalism and downright stupidity of that post doesn't even merit the dignity of a response. I don't feed trolls.

Let me boil your argument down to language you can understand.

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

To which the Adults in the room go, I'm sorry but no. There are other children that want to play.

You don't feed trolls? Clearly you're also someone who is prepared to just sigh and do nothing while your rights are trampled on. Someone who life has trampled so utterly that you see no hope for achieving a better society, a better country for our children.

Then again, as someone who works in taxation, to expect you to display any imagination, fire or uncomformist thinking is probably expecting a little too much.

Oh, and I'm not a troll. Someone who doesn't agree with your point of view isn't a troll, but hey - I'm sure you're well used to hilarious trolling in the ever action-packed taxation forum, and can certainly differentiate opposing opinions from baiting.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Then the parents would end up picking up the tab by paying tuition fees of the order of 10-20K a year.

That's what would be the natural result.

I don't believe in Religion in schools but it is a historical hangover because, and credit where it is due historically the Christian Brothers and their ilk were the ONLY education model the fledging state could afford. This country was rich for 10 years and flat broke for 90.

Jumping up and down and demanding special treatment because you are athiest is arrogant and stupid. If you don't want a religioius school, don't send your kids to one. If it is further away, that's it. You wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia and expect them to make concessions for Christian kids, you would send them to a Christian or non denomination school. Athiests are in the minority in this country. Tough. Deal with it. If it's awkward, well I'm sorry. That's life.

So because the Christian Brothers provided the schools during that time period (you may forget, controlling schools = controlling young minds = higher numbers of indoctrinated kids) they should continue to instill their particular world and social view on the nation's youth? At this stage, they damned well OWE us those schools and land considering the bloody compensation the church is dodging owing from child sexual abuse.

Your last paragraph is infuriating - atheists are not demanding SPECIAL treatment, they want EQUAL treatment. We don't want ATHEIST schools, we simply want schools where there is no preferred religion, in the style of educate together. At this stage, Ireland is so diverse with regards race and nationality that to defend a catholic-dominated education system is stupid and arrogant.

Maybe you need to wake up and realise that the day of the church in Ireland dominating our education system and having their way with childrens minds is wavering, and needs to swiftly be brought to a halt.
There is absolutely no way that a child should be barred from attending a state-funded school as they aren't baptised. A private school? I've no problem there. But I have a serious problem when my taxes are funding the future discrimination of my future children. Maybe you and your ilk will sit back and usual and let these abuses happen, but I'm not prepared to.

Dades

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Athiests are in the minority in this country. Tough. Deal with it.

Just like handicapped people. Screw them too with their special needs. That's the way democracy works, right?

byhookorbycrook

There are no non-denominational schools ,only multi-denominational in the primary sector.

Oafley Jones

TheChizler wrote: »

Has there ever been an attempt at some class action type of thing?

There's nothing like that in this country.

Gambler

robindch wrote: »

If it were me -- which it's not, so this suggestion is entirely theoretical -- I'd be tempted to name and shame.

It's useful that people know and understand that this kind of systemic abuse is taking place.

Let me check if my she would object to me naming. He's not in that school anymore so I can't see her minding but I'd rather check first.

Mark Hamill

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I don't believe in Religion in schools but it is a historical hangover because, and credit where it is due historically the Christian Brothers and their ilk were the ONLY education model the fledging state could afford. This country was rich for 10 years and flat broke for 90.

So? Even ignoring the horrible things the christian brothers and their ilk have done while in control of the schools, what difference does it make now that they historically took control of our schools when the state couldn't afford them? Do you honestly think they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think they have gotten nothing out of it? What about the fact that these schools are now state funded and state run (the state decide the curriculum)? We don't owe them anything.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Jumping up and down and demanding special treatment because you are athiest is arrogant and stupid.

Thats what christians are doing when they defend schools the way they are. Atheists are saying that schools should be secular, so that no-one gets unfair special treatment.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia and expect them to make concessions for Christian kids, you would send them to a Christian or non denomination school.

Lets change all of our laws to match Saudi Arabia then, shall we? Their religious attitude is exactly what we should immitate. Do you agree that women shouldn't be allowed to drive?

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Athiests are in the minority in this country. Tough. Deal with it. If it's awkward, well I'm sorry. That's life.

How very christian of you.

iguana

Gambler wrote: »

And as a side note my sister ended up having no choice but to baptise her child because it was less than 2 weeks to the start of term and she had been unable to find any school willing to take her son at all. The department of education had said that they would try and find her a school but there was no movement and she was running out of time so was left with no choice at all.

Non-Catholic children can and will be placed in Catholic schools. The problem arises when the school is over-subscribed as then the Catholic children are given priority and the non-Catholic children are left with no place. My suggestion would be to avoid making any decision until you actually know that there will be a problem getting your child a school place. The school patronage system is currently changing with a plan for about half of the schools in the country to change patronage in the next few years. So you may find that 4-6 years from now this isn't an issue at all. The new system is far from perfect but it should not allow for religious discrimination in the allocation of places. If however you do find that none of the schools in your area have changed you can have a baptism at 4 like your sister did.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

There is an argument that the church should gift these lands to the state as compensation for clerical abuse etc but the state turned a willfull blind eye to most of it.

Do you have a clue what you are talking about? In the abuse cases in question the state paid the compensation awarded against it for it's part in allowing the abuses to happen. IT ALSO paid the compensation awarded against the church as the church refused to pay it and the state had finally accepted responsibility and wanted the victims to have the closure they deserved and did so, so they could avoid the trauma of having to chase the church for the money. It doesn't fix what happened but the state has accepted its role in those abuses and paid for them twice. Saying that the state turned a blind eye as some sort of implication that the church should get off free is a statement devoid of sense and knowledge about the events in question.

And to use the word 'gifted' instead of payment when the sums owed are so bloody astronomical is utterly laughable. The lands of every school in the country wouldn't cover the payment for a fraction of the interest currently owed to the state by the church. The church owes the state over six hundred million euro, closer to a billion counting interest. The lands of any school where abuse was covered up should be placed under a compulsory purchase order and the payment should be taken off the total sum owed.

Zamboni

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Jumping up and down and demanding special treatment because you are athiest is arrogant and stupid. If you don't want a religioius school, don't send your kids to one. If it is further away, that's it. You wouldn't go to Saudi Arabia and expect them to make concessions for Christian kids, you would send them to a Christian or non denomination school. Athiests are in the minority in this country. Tough. Deal with it. If it's awkward, well I'm sorry. That's life.

It is not about special treatment. It is about being able to access what is guaranteed in the Irish Constitution and in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that Ireland signed up to.
It also a process that is currently underway to right this wrong, by a complete bypass of the exemption in the Equal Status Act for religious schools to operate on a denominational student first policy.
So whilst there is a just case to take against that exemption clause, it will not matter in the long term, due to the divestment of Catholic Schools and the awarding of new schools to multi-denominational school patrons such as Educate Together.
So it is not tough or awkward it is simply a tolerable transition.

Fortyniner

I don't see much mileage in legal action. Control of the education system is slipping away from the RCC, reflecting the growing view that secularism is a better way.

Mr Brady and co are speeding up the pace of change by their own actions.

Mr. Incognito

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

You don't feed trolls? Clearly you're also someone who is prepared to just sigh and do nothing while your rights are trampled on. Someone who life has trampled so utterly that you see no hope for achieving a better society, a better country for our children.

Then again, as someone who works in taxation, to expect you to display any imagination, fire or uncomformist thinking is probably expecting a little too much.

Oh, and I'm not a troll. Someone who doesn't agree with your point of view isn't a troll, but hey - I'm sure you're well used to hilarious trolling in the ever action-packed taxation forum, and can certainly differentiate opposing opinions from baiting.

So because the Christian Brothers provided the schools during that time period (you may forget, controlling schools = controlling young minds = higher numbers of indoctrinated kids) they should continue to instill their particular world and social view on the nation's youth? At this stage, they damned well OWE us those schools and land considering the bloody compensation the church is dodging owing from child sexual abuse.

Your last paragraph is infuriating - atheists are not demanding SPECIAL treatment, they want EQUAL treatment. We don't want ATHEIST schools, we simply want schools where there is no preferred religion, in the style of educate together. At this stage, Ireland is so diverse with regards race and nationality that to defend a catholic-dominated education system is stupid and arrogant.

Maybe you need to wake up and realise that the day of the church in Ireland dominating our education system and having their way with childrens minds is wavering, and needs to swiftly be brought to a halt.
There is absolutely no way that a child should be barred from attending a state-funded school as they aren't baptised. A private school? I've no problem there. But I have a serious problem when my taxes are funding the future discrimination of my future children. Maybe you and your ilk will sit back and usual and let these abuses happen, but I'm not prepared to.

There are two references to the taxation forum? Why? Attack the post and not the poster.

atheists are not demanding SPECIAL treatment, they want EQUAL treatment. We don't want ATHEIST schools, we simply want schools where there is no preferred religion, in the style of educate together.

Yes you are. This whole thread is about suing the state for having religion in religious run schools because someone doesn't want to baptise their kid. They want the ENTIRE education system adjusted to suit them.

Not going to happen dude. Religion will die out eventually but suing the state? Get real.

How very christian of you.

I'm not christian dude- I'm not even religious. You don't really make any other valid points.

Do you have a clue what you are talking about? In the abuse cases in question the state paid the compensation awarded against it for it's part in allowing the abuses to happen. IT ALSO paid the compensation awarded against the church as the church refused to pay it and the state had finally accepted responsibility and wanted the victims to have the closure they deserved and did so, so they could avoid the trauma of having to chase the church for the money. It doesn't fix what happened but the state has accepted its role in those abuses and paid for them twice. Saying that the state turned a blind eye as some sort of implication that the church should get off free is a statement devoid of sense and knowledge about the events in question.

And to use the word 'gifted' instead of payment when the sums owed are so bloody astronomical is utterly laughable. The lands of every school in the country wouldn't cover the payment for a fraction of the interest currently owed to the state by the church. The church owes the state over six hundred million euro, closer to a billion counting interest. The lands of any school where abuse was covered up should be placed under a compulsory purchase order and the payment should be taken off the total sum owed.

I agree with you dude. That's why I made the point. I personally think the State should sieze those assets.

Interest on 600 million is not 400 million btw.

Bannasidhe

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This whole thread is about suing the state for having religion in religious run schools because someone doesn't want to baptise their kid. They want the ENTIRE education system adjusted to suit them.

No. The point of this thread is that over 90% of the State funded National Schools in this country are 'religious' because they are under the patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. Plus, it is not possible for a non-denomination school to receive State funding. The State is forcing people to send their children to schools where religion is part of the curriculum and denying them the opportunity to send their children to schools which do not teach religion.

The State is denying citizens of this country a choice.

Mr. Incognito

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. The point of this thread is that over 90% of the State funded National Schools in this country are 'religious' because they are under the patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. Plus, it is not possible for a non-denomination school to receive State funding. The State is forcing people to send their children to schools where religion is part of the curriculum and denying them the opportunity to send their children to schools which do not teach religion.

The State is denying citizens of this country a choice.

Now you are just talking out your hole. There are plenty of teachers in private schools being paid by the State. I attended one myself. There are plenty of state funed non denomination schools too.

Look people think I am defending the church or the educations system.

I am not.

The thread is a fight the power athiest- GO TEAM. Equality!! Yeah.

It's not about equality. It's about stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious due to historical facts.

The question is there a lawsuit in it. It's been tried. The courts have said no.

/Close thread.

I have no desire to discuss the matter further. I've already been infracted for pointing out utterly sensationalist dribble.

Zamboni

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Now you are just talking out your hole.

How on earth did you become a mod with language like that?

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The question is there a lawsuit in it. It's been tried. The courts have said no.

Do you have any evidence that such a case existed?

Mr. Incognito

Zamboni wrote: »

How on earth did you become a mod with language like that?


Do you have any evidence that such a case existed?

Sorry- I have an aversion to people making crap up.

Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 exempts denominational schools from the scope of the prohibition on employment discrimination where such discrimination is “reasonable” in relation to the need to “maintain the religious ethos of the institution.

The “right to discriminate”, on various grounds, is said to be derivative of schools’ “religious freedom”, conceived of rather loosely and ideologically. In in Re Article 26 and the Employment Equality Bill 1996, the Supreme Court upheld a provision in the 1996 Bill, exempting denominational schools, virtual identical to the current s. 37 (the 1996 Bill was struck down on other grounds). The Supreme Court asserted that “religious freedom” enjoyed primacy over equality in situations where these principles conflict. Therefore, it held that religious discrimination was permissible where necessary to give “life and reality” to the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Thus, discrimination, by denominational schools, was given a constitutional expression. “Religious freedom”, in this context, is generally taken to refer to the right of parents to have their children educated in denominational schools, which in turn is taken to protect all measure and exclusionary prerogatives of such schools as are necessary to uphold their “ethos”. However, this link of necessity – between discrimination and religious freedom – is poorly made out, and enjoys no basis in any coherent ethical conception of religious freedom

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/02/22/opposition-bill-on-teachers-and-sexual-orientation-the-constitutional-context/

Dave!

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Now you are just talking out your hole. There are plenty of teachers in private schools being paid by the State. I attended one myself. There are plenty of state funed non denomination schools too.

Look people think I am defending the church or the educations system.

I am not.

The thread is a fight the power athiest- GO TEAM. Equality!! Yeah.

It's not about equality. It's about stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious due to historical facts.

The question is there a lawsuit in it. It's been tried. The courts have said no.

/Close thread.

I have no desire to discuss the matter further. I've already been infracted for pointing out utterly sensationalist dribble.

Who cares that the schools are religious for historical reasons? Something is either right or it's not, and surely you don't believe that it's okay that 90%+ of schools are under Catholic patronage and they are legally allowed to discriminate on that basis.

Ignore the logistics or the legality for the time being. Morally is it okay in the 21st century to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religious beliefs, or lackthereof?

gaynorvader

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Now you are just talking out your hole. There are plenty of teachers in private schools being paid by the State. I attended one myself. There are plenty of state funed non denomination schools too.

Look people think I am defending the church or the educations system.

I am not.

The thread is a fight the power athiest- GO TEAM. Equality!! Yeah.

It's not about equality. It's about stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious due to historical facts.

The question is there a lawsuit in it. It's been tried. The courts have said no.
...

I believe the thread is actually about non-catholic children being denied a place in a public school because the school's administration give preference to catholic children. The OP is surprised that the state has not been sued for allowing this discrimination continue.
As far as I can tell, you and Jimmy entered a shouting match without really understanding each others point of views, and it quickly degraded.

Basically, I think you may have misunderstood the OP and are now arguing against private schools being forced to allow non-catholics in while everyone else is arguing that public schools should be forced to allow non-catholics in. And that's why everyone is calling one another fools, it's like one person arguing that a tree is brown, while the other shouts "No you bloody fool, can't you see it's made of wood?!"

Of course, it's always possible I've misunderstood. But as I understand it, I agree with the OP. State-funded schools should not be allowed to discriminate on religious (or any other) grounds. Simple.

Bannasidhe

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Now you are just talking out your hole. There are plenty of teachers in private schools being paid by the State. I attended one myself. There are plenty of state funed non denomination schools too.

Look people think I am defending the church or the educations system.

I am not.

The thread is a fight the power athiest- GO TEAM. Equality!! Yeah.

It's not about equality. It's about stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious due to historical facts.

.

I assume the historical fact you are referring to is that the Roman Catholic Church and the British Government reached an accommodation during the campaign to abolish the Irish Parliament and bring in the Act of Union which saw the RCC being granted control of much of the education system in Ireland in return for it's whole hearted support for Union with Britain?
This arrangement was continued and extended when the Free State came into existence under the leadership of W.T. Cosgrave - a man who had official permission to have a chapel in his home where Mass was said every morning?

(Being a historian I can argue historical facts all day and night if you like )

There are no State funded non-denomination schools - how often do you need to be told this????
Dept. of Education rules stipulate that the State will not fund a school that does not teach religion. Is that clear enough?

Jimmy Bottlehead

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

There are two references to the taxation forum? Why? Attack the post and not the poster.

Hmm...

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The irrelevance and sensationalism and downright stupidity of that post doesn't even merit the dignity of a response. I don't feed trolls.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Jumping up and down and demanding special treatment because you are athiest is arrogant and stupid.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Now you are just talking out your hole.

Zamboni

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Sorry- I have an aversion to people making crap up.

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2012/02/22/opposition-bill-on-teachers-and-sexual-orientation-the-constitutional-context/

But there has not been any challenge to the exemption in the Equal Status Act.
This is very different than the employment perspective of the case mentioned.

robindch

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Now you are just talking out your hole.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Sorry- I have an aversion to people making crap up.

Mr I -- please mind your language.

robindch

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It's not about equality. It's about stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious due to historical facts.

As many here have pointed out, it's not about "stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious". It's about stopping religious organizations from discriminating against non-members in state-funded schools.

Do you have any idea what goes on in some of the schools controlled by unelected religious leaders?

Mr. Incognito

robindch wrote: »

As many here have pointed out, it's not about "stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious". It's about stopping religious organizations from discriminating against non-members in state-funded schools.

Do you have any idea what goes on in some of the schools controlled by unelected religious leaders?

With respect I don't give a damn. This is the fight the power I was talking about.

If you don't want religious kids then don't raise them in that particular religion. Simple.

I have a son. He was baptised. He will go to a good religious school and a good secondary school and pay lip service like the rest of us. I don't take him to mass or go to mass. I'm not militant anti zombie Jesus. I just could not be bothered.

Athiests are a minority. The State reflects the majority. Always has. And for historical reasons the church has a stranglhold on this country.

The Church will wither and die and the State will emerge as a secular state, in time. A lawsuit is fruitless until you are in a majority position.

Best of luck with the struggle and all that

Dave!

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

As many here have pointed out, it's not about "stamping a non religious view on schools that are religious". It's about stopping religious organizations from discriminating against non-members in state-funded schools.

Do you have any idea what goes on in some of the schools controlled by unelected religious leaders?

With respect I don't give a damn. This is the fight the power I was talking about.

If you don't want religious kids then don't raise them in that particular religion. Simple.

I have a son. He was baptised. He will go to a good religious school and a good secondary school and pay lip service like the rest of us. I don't take him to mass or go to mass. I'm not militant anti zombie Jesus. I just could not be bothered.

Athiests are a minority. The State reflects the majority. Always has. And for historical reasons the church has a stranglhold on this country.

The Church will wither and die and the State will emerge as a secular state, in time. A lawsuit is fruitless until you are in a majority position.

Best of luck with the struggle and all that

Closest thing we're gonna get to a concession that hasn't a leg to stand on with his argument.

Nice engaging with you!

Gambler

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

[...]He will go to a good religious school and a good secondary school and pay lip service like the rest of us.[...]

[...]Athiests are a minority. The State reflects the majority. Always has. And for historical reasons the church has a stranglhold on this country.[...]

Which is it? Either the majority go along with the flow and pay lip service but aren't really christian, which would mean secularists are the majority or the majority of the people are christians and believe it's important that their children are raised in a school that maintains a christian ethos..

The Church will wither and die and the State will emerge as a secular state, in time.

Or people will continue to go with the flow, pay lip service and nothing will change.. For someone who seems to want this change to happen you think we'd all be crazy to actually do anything to help make it happen..

Mr. Incognito

Dave! wrote: »

Closest thing we're gonna get to a concession that hasn't a leg to stand on with his argument.

Nice engaging with you!

What is my argument?

That private religious schools should not be forced to allow non religions persons attend.

Your argument is that the State should not be giving public funds to support these schools.

FIrstly: Although I am not religious check the census. Catholic is the prevailing religion and that's the reason the status quo continues. When that changes then so will the system.

The direct result of pulling public funds is that the schools would become fee paying private schools and the state would have to build new schools on private land. This is stupid.

The alternative is to pull religion from schools. That is a minority foisting their opinions and non belief on the majority.

How is that dificult to comprehend besides attacking me as a mod, taxation, cutting, bringing up child abuse :rolleyes: and posting parts of my threads, infracting me etc etc.

Thread- is there a lawsuit- No.

Everything else is just people

That is the result of pursing a useless militant agenda.

Mr. Incognito

Gambler wrote: »

Which is it? Either the majority go along with the flow and pay lip service but aren't really christian, which would mean secularists are the majority or the majority of the people are christians and believe it's important that their children are raised in a school that maintains a christian ethos..

Or people will continue to go with the flow, pay lip service and nothing will change.. For someone who seems to want this change to happen you think we'd all be crazy to actually do anything to help make it happen..

Okay. Lets follow this rabbit hole.

What would your practical steps be??

1. Establish non practicing lip service individuals like my good self.
2. Establish that they are a majority- plausable.
3. Remove religion from the cirriculum and ban religion from schools.
4. Seize schools as payment for abuse compensations.
5. Non religious schools are the norm.
6. Private schools for avowed devoted religious persons.

Is that about right?

Mark Hamill

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Yes you are. This whole thread is about suing the state for having religion in religious run schools because someone doesn't want to baptise their kid. They want the ENTIRE education system adjusted to suit them.

They aren't religiously run though, they are state run. They are funded by the state and still have to educate according to the states guidelines, its just that some of those state guidelines are religiously discriminating (which is illegal). The proposed changes to a secular system do not just suit us, they suit everyone because they don't don't favour anyone. I wonder did black people in the 40's and women in the 50's get the same attitude as this when they wnated equality?

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I'm not christian dude- I'm not even religious. You don't really make any other valid points.

Don't be dishonest, my other points are perfectly valid, they debunk everything you say. We don't ow the church anything, the current system is discriminatory, the proposed system is not and aiming to ape a country where women nearly lost the right to drive is hardly an enlightened thing to do.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I agree with you dude. That's why I made the point. I personally think the State should sieze those assets.

Interest on 600 million is not 400 million btw.

They should have to pay the entire 1.36 billion euro they were fined, never mind €680 + interest.

robindch

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If you don't want religious kids then don't raise them in that particular religion. Simple.

I think you'll find that your kid may not enjoy hearing one form of indoctrination in school, and what I assume must be exactly the opposite at home. I also think you're completely underestimating the ability, polished through centuries, of the church to indoctrinate innocent children.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The alternative is to pull religion from schools. That is a minority foisting their opinions and non belief on the majority.

That's an alternative. Another alternative is to have religious indoctrination take place outside of regular school hours, either after school, or on Sundays.

Or have the church indoctrinate kids on their own time and in their own premises -- they do have many large buildings scattered around the country for just this purpose already.

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The Church will wither and die and the State will emerge as a secular state, in time.

Given that you, and many others, are pretending that the church is alive and well and has something positive to contribute, I'm wondering how exactly you're expecting this nirvana to arrive if all you intend to do is submit to it.

Your confused and inaccurate point of view mirrors quite well the carefully-cultivated air of bewilderment and persecuted confusion held by the general public on this topic.