School patronage

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I see what you did there, playing around with capitals :rolleyes:
It is a small republic with a BIG Constitution.

That wasn't me, it was you? The Irish Republic is normally capitalised, as is the Constitution, unlike a republic, or a constitution, which wouldn't be. So.... well done on mis-capitalising?

recedite wrote: »

Regrettably, there is no separation of church and state in the constitution; it has been left out, perhaps deliberately.

Well, if you're saying Ireland wasn't established as a secular State I'm inclined to agree with you. But there is a separation of Church and State in the Constitution, obviously; the State is prohibited from endowing any religion, the State cannot interfere with the free profession and practice of religion by any citizen, and the State may not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status. The State cannot seize religious properties, or interfere with the running of religious orders affairs. Just like with the US founding fathers, there's a clear intent there to prevent the State from interfering with religion. In fact, the separation expressed in the Irish Constitution is arguably more explicit than that in the US First Amendment. I think really you mean that the separation of Church and State that you would like to see in the Constitution isn't there.

recedite wrote: »

So we are left arguing the "constitutionality" of secular schooling by using indirect references, such as those relating to the peoples right to equality V the right of religions to carry on their own business. Which argument tends to round in circles. In the end it is very difficult to show that secular schooling is either required by the constitution, or prohibited by it.

I don't think so; we've been arguing the Constitutionality of religious schooling which is clearly addressed in the Constitution. There is obviously no prohibition on secular schooling in the Constitution. However, there is an issue with the State enforcing solely secular schooling, which would be prohibited by parents Constitutional rights. Nothing to do with the rights of religious institutions to carry on their own business, all to do with the rights of parents to determine their childs education, rather than the State.

recedite wrote: »

It is really up to the people who live in this small republic to choose to elect a government who will implement secular schooling through legislation, or else hold a referendum to introduce the separation of church and state into the Constitution.

Honestly, if you want to implement exclusively secular education, I think it would take a Constitutional amendment to do it. And I don't think there are enough people who want it to elect a government that would bring a referendum forward, if you could even find enough political parties willing to form a government on that basis.
If you want a referendum to introduce your notion of separation of church and state into the Constitution, I think you'll need to be a lot less wishy washy about what that actually means, just for starters!

Cabaal

http://www.catholicschools.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/post-primary_junior_cycle.pdf

What an utter waste of valuable school time,

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

The State cannot seize religious properties, or interfere with the running of religious orders affairs. Just like with the US founding fathers, there's a clear intent there to prevent the State from interfering with religion.

I think the main concern for most of us is to prevent religion from interfering with the State.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I think the main concern for most of us is to prevent religion from interfering with the State.

How do you think you'd frame that as a Constitutional amendment? It would be interesting to see how it could work without disenfranchising religious people.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

How do you think you'd frame that as a Constitutional amendment? It would be interesting to see how it could work without disenfranchising religious people.

It would not have to be framed, all it would need is for references to religion's 'special place' to be removed. There is no need to change any of the points about people being entitled to practise a religion. Your point about disenfranchising does not actually make any sense.

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

What an utter waste of valuable school time,

Lovely dig in there against Obama on page 11:

Catholic Schools Week 2016 wrote:

Until recently, President Obama was the least merciful president of modern times in relation to granting clemency.

Catholic Schools Week 2016 wrote:

The Church must care for those who are hurting.

Terms and conditions apply.

Are all, or even most - hell, even some - parents aware that their kids are doing this unutterable shite?

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

Lovely dig in there against Obama on page 11:Terms and conditions apply.

Are all, or even most - hell, even some - parents aware that their kids are doing this unutterable shite?

And are the teachers aware of how badly this comes across or do they not care that they're obliged to teach this stuff? Do they ever critically evaluate why they're required to indoctrinate children?

galljga1

robindch wrote: »

Lovely dig in there against Obama on page 11:Terms and conditions apply.

Are all, or even most - hell, even some - parents aware that their kids are doing this unutterable shite?

I was aware of the "catholic week". I was not aware of the content.
My daughter is going to arrive home in a ball of rage today if she has to listen to this nonsense. If a twelve year old can question this crap, why can't everyone else?
To quote the good book: "Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear".

expectationlost

robindch wrote: »

Lovely dig in there against Obama on page 11:Terms and conditions apply.

Are all, or even most - hell, even some - parents aware that their kids are doing this unutterable shite?

seems like it was written by an america with reference to school shootings too

expectationlost

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2016-01-28a.928&s=%22School+Patronage%22

322. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills if she accepts the results of the survey she carried out with the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in 2012 which clearly demonstrates the parental demand for a multidenominational school in Dublin 6W and further details on the engagement with existing school patrons in the area; if she is aware that schools in the area have commenced offering places for September 2016 and parents are receiving rejection letters on religious grounds; the assurances she will provide to these parents that suitable school places will be provided for their children in time for the commencement of the new school year; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Minister

Regarding the Dublin 6W area, my Department officials are engaged with existing school patrons regarding the possibility of school divestment which may impact on the Dublin 6W area. My officials are working closely with the current patrons on the practicalities of the property issues involved and work is well advanced in this regard.
Separately, I announced the establishment of 4 new primary schools and 9 new post-primary schools to open in 2017 and 2018, including a new primary school which will open in September 2018 to serve the Dublin South City Centre areas of Dublin 2, 4 and 6, which is adjacent to the Dublin 6W area and which will provide additional capacity. I also indicated that my Department will keep the demographic data under ongoing review taking into account updated enrolment data and the impact of ongoing and planned expansion of capacity.
In relation to the schools in the area having commenced offering places for September 2016, the selection and enrolment of pupils in schools is the responsibility of the authorities of the individual school.

still begging from church and hands off on giving children freedom from religion

Bristolscale7

When she says this:

In relation to the schools in the area having commenced offering places for September 2016, the selection and enrolment of pupils in schools is the responsibility of the authorities of the individual school.

What is the story with SEction 29 appeals where the DES directly confirms the decision of a patron to discriminate on religious grounds.?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

It would not have to be framed, all it would need is for references to religion's 'special place' to be removed. There is no need to change any of the points about people being entitled to practise a religion. Your point about disenfranchising does not actually make any sense.

I don't think that's true at all; for instance, the basis for religious ethos schools isn't 'religion's special place' in the Constitution, but parents Constitutional right to have their children educated in their religion. Perhaps you don't see that as religion interfering with the State though; in fairness I'd say it might be tricky to nail down just how religion is currently interfering with the State, as distinct from religious people currently participating in the State.

But, just for the sake of discussion, how would removing (which, exactly?) references to religions 'special place' prevent 'religion' from interfering with the State?
We've already removed Articles 44.1.2 & 3, so the State no longer recognises any special position of the Catholic Church or any other religious denomination. We could remove "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred" from the preamble, but that doesn't seem to legalise any interference by any religion?
Similarly 44.1 "The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion"; I'm not sure what right of interference you might construe from there, so what will getting rid of it put an end to?
Finally, whilst oaths of office referring to God might well give pause to non religious Presidents (or members of the Council of State) elect, they don't seem to confer any powers of interference on any religion.
We could happily remove all of these (by referendum of course) and I don't think it would make a whit of difference to religion interfering with the State. Do you?


Which doesn't have a lot to do with School Patronage, but anyways....

expectationlost

Revealed: only 46 Catholic schools oversubscribed www.irishcatholic.ie/article/revealed-only-46-catholic-schools-oversubscribed

Despite claims by politicians and commentators that one in five Catholic schools are over-subscribed and therefore forced to apply a ‘Catholics first’ policy meaning some non-Catholics are excluded, research conducted by this newspaper nationally has shown the figure to be less than 2%

who made that claim? the Irish Times http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/discrimination-on-school-admissions-must-end-to-ensure-equality-for-all-at-primary-level-1.2435300

About one-in-five Catholic-run schools are oversubscribed at present but this situation is likely to worsen because of a growing population.

Less than 2% of Catholic primary schools are oversubscribed – survey - http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/less-2-catholic-primary-schools-are-oversubscribed-%E2%80%93-survey#sthash.hYj3p897.dpuf

out of our cold dead hands

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

How do you think you'd frame that as a Constitutional amendment? It would be interesting to see how it could work without disenfranchising religious people.

How does it work in nearly every other first world country on the planet? How does it work in countries like France where, despite a Catholic majority, they manage to be secular. I don't often recall hearing French Catholics whinge and moan about being 'disenfranchised' by secularism. Why do you think it will be any different for Irish Catholics?

Kiwi in IE

On the brighter side of religion in schools, in Little Kiwis class this week when they were talking about 'God's creations', a little (nominally Catholic) girl asked the teacher "Who made God then?". I was also talking a mother of one of LK's friends, her son had said to her that LK didn't have to get a dirty face yesterday with the rest of the class, so why did he have to. She told me that her son had asked her what lent was for and why he was supposed to give up something. She told him that it's about making sacrifices because Jesus sacrificed himself, child responded "but he didn't have to, I didn't ask him to, so why do I have to give up anything". Child now not doing lent (culturally Catholic family). It seems they are even having trouble fooling the 7 year olds of today which is very heartening.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

How does it work in nearly every other first world country on the planet? How does it work in countries like France where, despite a Catholic majority, they manage to be secular. I don't often recall hearing French Catholics whinge and moan about being 'disenfranchised' by secularism. Why do you think it will be any different for Irish Catholics?

Well, why don't you show us how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people?
We can compare that to existing provisions in Irish law, and of course the separation of Church and State that exists in the Constitution, contrary to the original assertion.

Hopefully you won't confuse being secular with preventing religion from interfering with the State when you try

Hotblack Desiato

April Duff and the Quinner on Newstalk now

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

Well, why don't you show us how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people?
We can compare that to existing provisions in Irish law, and of course the separation of Church and State that exists in the Constitution, contrary to the original assertion.

Hopefully you won't confuse being secular with preventing religion from interfering with the State when you try

I'm not aware of any other first world countries that have active legislation which allows discrimination against children based on religious affiliation.

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I'm not aware of any other first world countries that have active legislation which allows discrimination against children based on religious affiliation.

That doesn't sound like you know of any that are preventing religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people though? You just don't know of any others who've legislated to faciliate what faith schools do around the world; prefer members of their own faith.... which is not really to say that there aren't any either, is it? Just that you don't know about them.

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

That doesn't sound like you know of any that are preventing religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people though? You just don't know of any others who've legislated to faciliate what faith schools do around the world; prefer members of their own faith.... which is not really to say that there aren't any either, is it? Just that you don't know about them.

It means I know of no first world states that are active partners in religious discrimination against children other than Ireland.

I am not learned enough in international law that I would state categorically there are no others. If you aware of any other states that are active partners in the religious discrimination of children then please share.

Otherwise I can state in my opinion there are no other first world states that actively allow religious discrimination against minors.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Well, why don't you show us how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people?
We can compare that to existing provisions in Irish law, and of course the separation of Church and State that exists in the Constitution, contrary to the original assertion.

Hopefully you won't confuse being secular with preventing religion from interfering with the State when you try

Do you actually understand what the words 'secular' and 'disenfranchising' mean?

Shrap

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

April Duff and the Quinner on Newstalk now

Thought that was a good interview. April Duff came across very well indeed. Quinn sounded as petulant as usual....

Bristolscale7

Remember, only in Ireland can someone claim that people are disenfranchised if their right to discriminate based on religion is removed.

Shrap

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Remember, only in Ireland can someone claim that people are disenfranchised if their right to discriminate based on religion is removed.

Well, in fairness, people in other religious theocracies could claim that too.

Here's a thought though - maybe, just maybe there would be no discrimination if everyone of all religions and none were "disenfranchised" in the very same way! A novel approach, I know. It's called Secularism Absolam, FYI.

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

It means I know of no first world states that are active partners in religious discrimination against children other than Ireland.

Which, in fairness, wasn't the question I was asking, was it?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I am not learned enough in international law that I would state categorically there are no others. If you aware of any other states that are active partners in the religious discrimination of children then please share.

Why? It wasn't me that put the notion forward.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Otherwise I can state in my opinion there are no other first world states that actively allow religious discrimination against minors.

That's.... great?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Do you actually understand what the words 'secular' and 'disenfranchising' mean?

Now now.. feel free to take issue with anything I'm saying, but you should know better than to deride my comprehension. That's attacking the poster, not the post.

I have a feeling you're not going to show us how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people though, are you?

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Remember, only in Ireland can someone claim that people are disenfranchised if their right to discriminate based on religion is removed.

Mmm.. I'd say that if you remove peoples right to have a say in how their country is run because they identify as religious, you are disenfranchising them. That's not secularism; it's oppression.

And if you don't remove their right to have a say, you can't prevent religion from interfering in the State, because their religious views influence how they direct the actions of the State. That's not secularism either, that's democracy.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Well, in fairness, people in other religious theocracies could claim that too.
Here's a thought though - maybe, just maybe there would be no discrimination if everyone of all religions and none were "disenfranchised" in the very same way! A novel approach, I know. It's called Secularism Absolam, FYI.

Actually, I think disenfranchising everyone is called Totalitarianism?

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

Mmm.. I'd say that if you remove peoples right to have a say in how their country is run because they identify as religious, you are disenfranchising them.

Banal cultural relativism.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

April Duff and the Quinner on Newstalk now

I trust the nation reached for its off-switch.