School patronage

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

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?

Religious people are not disenfranchised when their religion does not interfere in policy and the provision of public services, so long as they are free to practice their religion as they see fit without interference. What they cannot do is insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. How is that disenfranchisement?

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

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?

No, and neither are you going to show how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State BY disenfranchising religious people, are you? Which *sigh* I am well aware is not what you were asked to do. However, can you show this? I am agog.

robindch wrote: »

I trust the nation reached for its off-switch.

No, April was winning. It was a refreshing change

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What they cannot do is insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. How is that disenfranchisement?

It's "disenfranchisement" in the sense that somebody stood up and said an emphatic "No!" to the undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable religious leaders who used to call the shots.

It's hard though for a political organization, especially one as entrenched as the RCC, to give up so much as a thimbleful of power and instead of seeing it as spreading the general franchise we should all share - and doing so in a fashion that Jesus might have approved of, had he ever chosen to address himself to reality - instead insists that it alone is being disenfranchised.

The poor mites though - unable to stretch their minds to conceive of a non-zero sum world.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Banal cultural relativism.

Tenebrous pseudo-intellectual deflection

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Religious people are not disenfranchised when their religion does not interfere in policy and the provision of public services, so long as they are free to practice their religion as they see fit without interference. What they cannot do is insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others. How is that disenfranchisement?

I didn't say it was? I asked how Looksee would frame a Constitutional amendment to prevent religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people. You're the one who's claiming (without offering any evidence at all) that it's being done in nearly every first world country on the planet. I've certainly not claimed that anyone can insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others, so that would appear to be something posters around here like to call a strawman on your part?

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

No, and neither are you going to show how nearly every other first world country on the planet prevents religion from interfering with the State BY disenfranchising religious people, are you? Which *sigh* I am well aware is not what you were asked to do. However, can you show this? I am agog.

Since I didn't offer the assertion (not even the assertion that nearly every other first world country on the planet doesn't prevent religion from interfering with the State by disenfranchising religious people), no, I'm not going to offer to prove Kiwi in IEs unevidenced notion wrong; I'll continue with the usual train of assuming it to be wrong until proven true. Though if A&A in general is switching from requiring evidence for assertions to requiring evidence for disputing un-evidenced claims, those of a religious persuasion are going to feel a lot more comfortable here

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I didn't say it was? I asked how Looksee would frame a Constitutional amendment to prevent religion from interfering with the State without disenfranchising religious people. You're the one who's claiming (without offering any evidence at all) that it's being done in nearly every first world country on the planet. I've certainly not claimed that anyone can insist that their religious rules interfere with the rights and freedoms of others, so that would appear to be something posters around here like to call a strawman on your part?

If we assume (and we have to make assumptions as you are not being clear - what else is new?) that you are giving the term disenfranchise its fairly obscure reason of 'removing a right' rather than the more usual meaning of 'depriving of the right to vote' then, yes, let's disenfranchise people. All through history people have lost rights in order that other people gain rights. I am not going to offer any examples as you will immediately go off at a tangent to fudge the argument.

The only other first world country that I know of where religion is given authority in schools is some states of the USA (yes yes, we know states are not countries) where their insistence on religion based teaching in relation to Creationism/Evolution makes them a laughing stock, but actually it is no more ridiculous than some of the topics that are regarded as 'education' in Ireland.

I don't really believe that it is necessary to change the constitution to remove these rights, the constitution has a lot of unnecessary religious waffle in it, but that is just my opinion. Any decent lawyer could interpret the current constitution to show that it does not give the Roman Catholic church the authority in schools that it has taken on for itself, and that the government gave to it. If they could give, a hundred years ago, they can take away now.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

Tenebrous pseudo-intellectual deflection

I should get a prize for reducing Absolam to ad-hominem attacks.

PopePalpatine

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I should get a prize for reducing Absolam to ad-hominem attacks.

With a cherry on top for emulating the Watery One's/a pompous monk's thesaurus abuse. :pac:

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I should get a prize for reducing Absolam to ad-hominem attacks.

You should have a reread first; I was describing your post, not you. Whilst keeping in step with your own delivery, of course.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

With a cherry on top for emulating the Watery One's/a pompous monk's thesaurus abuse. :pac:

Though I'll happily agree Bristolscale7 deserves his cherry for his overwrought prose nonetheless. :pac:

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

If we assume (and we have to make assumptions as you are not being clear - what else is new?) that you are giving the term disenfranchise its fairly obscure reason of 'removing a right' rather than the more usual meaning of 'depriving of the right to vote' then, yes, let's disenfranchise people. All through history people have lost rights in order that other people gain rights. I am not going to offer any examples as you will immediately go off at a tangent to fudge the argument.

Well, you didn't ask, but since the word seems to be an issue for you I mean disenfranchise as in prevent from participating in the democratic process, which is to say, having the same voice as everyone else in our nation's decisions (or, to put it another way, having the same entitlement to interfere with the State as anyone else).

looksee wrote: »

The only other first world country that I know of where religion is given authority in schools is some states of the USA (yes yes, we know states are not countries) where their insistence on religion based teaching in relation to Creationism/Evolution makes them a laughing stock, but actually it is no more ridiculous than some of the topics that are regarded as 'education' in Ireland.

Which is all fine and dandy I'm sure, but we weren't talking about religion being given authority in schools; we were talking about your particular concern to prevent religion from interfering with the State.

looksee wrote: »

I don't really believe that it is necessary to change the constitution to remove these rights, the constitution has a lot of unnecessary religious waffle in it, but that is just my opinion.

Well, I don't know what 'these rights' are that you're referring to removing, but since most rights are expressed in the Constitution, it's hard to imagine they could be removed without changing the Constitution? If you are aware of a way to remove Constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, there's a lot of people here with more than a passing interest in the 8th Amendment just dying to hear how to do it...

looksee wrote: »

Any decent lawyer could interpret the current constitution to show that it does not give the Roman Catholic church the authority in schools that it has taken on for itself, and that the government gave to it. If they could give, a hundred years ago, they can take away now.

I don't think anyone has suggested the Constitution gives the Catholic Church authority in schools though, have they? That looks like one of those arguments where you pretend someone else is making it so you can knock it down. So.... well done?

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Well, you didn't ask, but since the word seems to be an issue for you I mean disenfranchise as in prevent from participating in the democratic process, which is to say, having the same voice as everyone else in our nation's decisions (or, to put it another way, having the same entitlement to interfere with the State as anyone else).

In fact I did ask, you are only just answering. In respect of the topic we are discussing, not everyone, if judged by your analysis, is enfranchised, so some people have more voice than others.

Which is all fine and dandy I'm sure, but we weren't talking about religion being given authority in schools; we were talking about your particular concern to prevent religion from interfering with the State.

Yes we were, one leads directly to the other.

Well, I don't know what 'these rights' are that you're referring to removing, but since most rights are expressed in the Constitution, it's hard to imagine they could be removed without changing the Constitution? If you are aware of a way to remove Constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, there's a lot of people here with more than a passing interest in the 8th Amendment just dying to hear how to do it...

If you had quoted all that I said instead of being selective the answer is already there.

I don't think anyone has suggested the Constitution gives the Catholic Church authority in schools though, have they? That looks like one of those arguments where you pretend someone else is making it so you can knock it down. So.... well done?

That is exactly the argument that has been made since the beginning of the thread.

You are really reaching for arguments at this stage Absolem. There are a few posters who only come into A&A for the purpose of the argument, rather than any real interest in the topic. That is fair enough up to a point, but it does become filibustering after a while. None of the points you raised above are real arguments, if you can come up with some genuine reasoning I will be happy to discuss them, I have no desire to discuss semantics and concocted, irrelevant points.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

In fact I did ask, you are only just answering.

You didn't you know; you complained about how you had to assume what I meant by disenfranchise as you thought I wasn't being clear. Asking someone if they know what a word means is certainly not the same as asking what they mean by their use of a word. And you didn't even say thank you when I explained without you asking.

looksee wrote: »

In respect of the topic we are discussing, not everyone, if judged by your analysis, is enfranchised, so some people have more voice than others.

Since the topic we're discussing is your desire to prevent religion from interfering with the State I have to say you're quite wrong; both religious and irreligious people are equally entitled to interfere with the State, and I hope both will continue to be able to do so.

looksee wrote: »

Yes we were, one leads directly to the other.

If you want to offer a case for one leading directly to the other go right ahead, but we weren't discussing it. We were discussing your desire to prevent religion from interfering with the State. Perhaps if you figure that out we can then move onto what may or may not lead directly from it?

looksee wrote: »

If you had quoted all that I said instead of being selective the answer is already there.

You mean if I quoted "I am not going to offer any examples as you will immediately go off at a tangent to fudge the argument."? I got the impression that was where you were specifically saying you wouldn't give any examples of rights you would remove. Did I read it wrong? Anyway, if you can quote where you specified what rights you were talking about removing, I'd be interested to see them. Like I said, so might others.

looksee wrote: »

That is exactly the argument that has been made since the beginning of the thread.

Really? I thought the argument being made since the beginning of the thread was that the State should not support religious schools. Do you know, since it's been going on so long, has anyone pointed out where the Constitution gives the Catholic Church authority in schools? Surely someone would have, if it's the argument that has been made since the beginning of this two hundred odd page thread?

looksee wrote: »

You are really reaching for arguments at this stage Absolem.

Do you think so? To be fair I think you're kind of handing a lot of them to me on a plate...

looksee wrote: »

There are a few posters who only come into A&A for the purpose of the argument, rather than any real interest in the topic. That is fair enough up to a point, but it does become filibustering after a while.

Right.... because once people get tired and stop pointing out the flaws in your arguments... what do you think will happen? Filibustering implies an attempt to delay a result, but what result do you really think will come about if no one bothers to oppose what you're saying?

looksee wrote: »

None of the points you raised above are real arguments, if you can come up with some genuine reasoning I will be happy to discuss them, I have no desire to discuss semantics and concocted, irrelevant points.

Well, I'm sure if I'd known they weren't real arguments I'd never have bothered with them at all! I'll obviously have to try much harder if I'm to successfully filibuster you into not banning religious individuals from the democratic process

looksee

To be fair I think you're kind of handing a lot of them to me on a plate...

Fair enough, I will stop feeding you.

Bristolscale7

Absolam's contribution to this forum is to show us the increasingly tendentious legalistic grounds for allowing catholic patroned schools to discriminate against non-catholics. Just as that horrible mary or whoever it was that was posting about begrudgers is illustrative of the low end of the scale, Absolam illustrates the Jesuit version. So, for example, in the past few days we learned that the church uses 'disenfranchisement' in a way that normal people do not. He's useful for that kind of stuff. The rest is just intellectual masturbation.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Absolam's contribution to this forum is to show us the increasingly tendentious legalistic grounds for allowing catholic patroned schools to discriminate against non-catholics. Just as that horrible mary or whoever it was that was posting about begrudgers is illustrative of the low end of the scale, Absolam illustrates the Jesuit version. So, for example, in the past few days we learned that the church uses 'disenfranchisement' in a way that normal people do not. He's useful for that kind of stuff. The rest is just intellectual masturbation.

Just as a matter of interest, are you classing that as being reduced to an ad hominem attack? It's just... you do appear to be talking about me, and not my posts. So do I get a prize?

Still, if you feel like discussing what I've said, you need only pick one of the topics and enter the debate. I appreciate it might be a little daunting to have to engage in a discussion rather than sniping from the sidelines, but I imagine if it gets too tricky you can always abandon your position and bow out with a quip. If the idea of participating seems a little too much like intellectual masturbation for you... maybe you're doing it wrong?

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

If the idea of participating seems a little too much like intellectual masturbation for you... maybe you're doing it wrong?

You may well be, by some distance, the forum's leading language slicer. This is not an enviable position since fully stimulating, intellectual intercourse really does need to involve more than one person.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

You may well be, by some distance, the forum's leading language slicer. This is not an enviable position since fully stimulating, intellectual intercourse really does need to involve more than one person.

Well... compliments aside, I certainly don't want to be envied... though I'd say a little light dalliance can be just as fun as fully stimulating, intellectual intercourse sometimes, it certainly is impossible to argue specificity without arguing it with someone.
So I agree, it really does need to involve more than one person, but I thought inviting Bristolscale7 to join the discussion was a tiny bit nicer than saying straight out that the act of participating is more than simply watching other people engage in a discussion and commenting on them at moments you find climactic; that is pretty much intellectually.... non participatory? For want of a less onanistic term.

looksee

Non-participation is becoming increasingly appealing, I think I might head over to Humanities.

(you needed a comma after the 'sometimes' in the first paragraph)

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Non-participation is becoming increasingly appealing, I think I might head over to Humanities.

(you needed a comma after the 'sometimes' in the first paragraph)

Well spotted and duly amended

Cabaal

None shocking study finds Ireland's education system is effectively segregationist,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-education-enrolment-segregated-study-reveals-1.2543205

The study on Islamophobia in the city also shows evidence of racism by teachers towards their pupils, of institutional racism within An Garda Síochána and it criticises the media portrayal of Islam.

Author of the report Dr James Carr also highlights the Department of Education policy “not to have a policy” on school uniforms and says that because of it “teachers might feel more legitimised” in displaying racist behaviour towards students.

The author said teachers have an impact when they engage in “racist discourse” in school. The report highlights discriminatory practices and the failure to address anti-Muslim racism in the class.

In one school incident a teacher told a female student wearing a hijab or headscarf to “take that stupid thing off your head”. In another incident a boy in sixth class at the time was told to “Shut up, Allah” when he explained that his Muslim beliefs were different from what was being taught about Islam in the curriculum.

In another, the year-head teacher told a student “Sorry, can’t do anything” when she reported racist comments from other students. In one Dublin university a number of lecturers have been reported as “blatantly racist” and “Muslims actually go into lectures and record them”.

The flippant abusive attitude is not very different to what I experienced in school when I said I didn't believe in god. Had a priest lecture me one day and was thrown out of numerous religion classes by questioning stuff in a none disruptive way.

On a side note, the story is somewhat inaccurate as Islam is of course not a race so the teachers comments can't be racist. However they are none the less discriminatory comments based on religion which are still certainly not ok.

Absolam

Some info on the extent of the study;

The study is based on a qualitative survey of 66 men and women about their experience of being Muslim in Dublin.

And on the research into the segregationist finding.

Dr Carr said schools were “de facto segregationist” because friends in primary level are separated at secondary level because of the religion requirements in enrolment policy.

Cabaal

Oh look, the catholic church is trying to direct people away from the actual issue again

Of course if the catholic church runs the schools and the schools are failing travelers doesn't that make it the church's fault?

From the Pastoral statement on the Catholic Bishops of Ireland on the upcoming General Election – distributed at mass across Ireland yesterday.

can read it in full at http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2016/02/18/pastoral-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-ireland-on-the-upcoming-general-election/

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

None shocking study finds Ireland's education system is effectively segregationist,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-education-enrolment-segregated-study-reveals-1.2543205O

The guy has published a report on "islamophobia" here. It contains various allegations against the Gardai which appear to be unfounded or spurious. On page 8 there is an account of actual interactions between Gardai and attendees at a mosque, and I think the Gardai are shown to have done an exemplary job there. There are a few accounts of muslims being verbally abused by crackpots on buses etc. which is only to be expected.
All in all, I would say this is mostly sensationalist rubbish by the author who seems to be trying to make a name for himself by writing a book now about "islamophobia" in Ireland.

If individual muslims have genuine complaints in regard to the behaviour of individual teachers or Gardai, then there are avenues to make these complaints. This guy would have a story if he can show these complaints are not being addressed properly.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh look, the catholic church is trying to direct people away from the actual issue again Of course if the catholic church runs the schools and the schools are failing travelers doesn't that make it the church's fault? can read it in full at http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2016/02/18/pastoral-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-ireland-on-the-upcoming-general-election/

Would you be happy if they set up more Catholic schools to address the issue?

JPNelsforearm

Cabaal wrote: »

None shocking study finds Ireland's education system is effectively segregationist,

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-education-enrolment-segregated-study-reveals-1.2543205





The flippant abusive attitude is not very different to what I experienced in school when I said I didn't believe in god. Had a priest lecture me one day and was thrown out of numerous religion classes by questioning stuff in a none disruptive way.

On a side note, the story is somewhat inaccurate as Islam is of course not a race so the teachers comments can't be racist. However they are none the less discriminatory comments based on religion which are still certainly not ok.

Lobby group finds grounds for own existence shocker. These people get a hard on for this stuff, they want there to be racism, division etc, so they blow up these nothings as "evidence". Same crap the world over, always the victims.

expectationlost

Ruairí Quinn mentions Labour’s role in "on the transformation of the role of the Catholic Church in education" http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/not-retiring-quietly-ruair%C3%AD-quinn-has-harsh-words-for-critics-1.2544462 what ? when did this happen

The Randy Riverbeast

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh look, the catholic church is trying to direct people away from the actual issue again

Of course if the catholic church runs the schools and the schools are failing travelers doesn't that make it the church's fault?



can read it in full at http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2016/02/18/pastoral-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-ireland-on-the-upcoming-general-election/

If only the church were in some form of position that allowed them to provide support to those schools with poor disadvantaged children.

expectationlost

Secular Schools Ireland to apply to run three new primary schools in Dublin http://www.thejournal.ie/secular-schools-dublin-2658184-Mar2016/

I hoped they've upped their game http://secularschoolsireland.com/ it doesn't seem so

Educational Society of Ireland also applying
http://www.metroeireann.com/news/613/.html

the details for the dept of ed http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Establishing-a-New-School/New-Primary-Schools/Invitation-to-apply-for-Patronage-in-the-Establishment-of-New-Primary-Schools-due-to-open-in-September-2016.pdf

see page 13 in this https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Establishing-a-New-School/New-Primary-Schools/Patronage-Assessment-Report-to-the-New-Schools-Establishment-Group-Assessment-report-for-Sandymount-Ringsend.pdf what are those yellow dots and in this blue dots https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Establishing-a-New-School/New-Primary-Schools/Patronage-Assessment-Report-to-the-New-Schools-Establishment-Group-Assessment-report-for-Swords.pdf

expectationlost

Children's Rights Alliance Annual Report Card http://www.childrensrights.ie/content/report-card-2016

Once again, children found themselves unable to
access their local primary schools because of their
religion. Momentum on this issue fell sharply over
the course of the Government and the grade for
‘Patronage and Pluralism in Primary Education’
dropped to a ‘D’.

details on page 23