School patronage

looksee

robindch wrote: »

And getting the pensioners to stay at home.

I am a pensioner, how can you justify disenfranchising me?

robindch

looksee wrote: »

I am a pensioner, how can you justify disenfranchising me?

I was referring obliquely to the Brexit vote, in which the older generation voted selfishly, and in large numbers, to strip the younger generation of their EU-derived rights. While I'm not suggesting for one moment that pensioners should be blocked from voting, it would be nice older people could bear in mind who'll be dealing for much longer with the results of whatever vote they're taking part in.

As a general principle, btw, I do believe that people who are unaware or misinformed concerning the nature of some issue they're voting upon, or who have no stake in an outcome, or who are voting on some other proxy issue, should recuse themselves from voting as a matter of principle - however, that's the province of voters who are careful, honest, informed, unencumbered and rational and if recent votes are anything to judge by, such voters are becoming increasingly elusive, not to mention irrelevant.

looksee

I did not agree with the British choice to leave the EU, but it is rather easy to 'blame' the whole thing on the 'selfish voting' of the older generation. Are you suggesting that absolutely everyone else voted selflessly with only the interest of the younger generation in mind?

As for people being unaware or misinformed, who decides how misinformed an individual is? If a citizen has a view or an opinion he is entitled to vote based on that opinion. What else is he to do? Because you think his opinion is wrong does not mean he should not be entitled to vote, or should recuse himself. I do believe it was a mistake to offer people that vote at that particular time though.

And what does all this have to do with Irish education?

recedite

robindch wrote: »

the older generation voted selfishly, and in large numbers, to strip the younger generation of their EU-derived rights

Such nonsense. The older generation vote for what they think is generally the best policy, the same as the younger generation would.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

And getting the pensioners to stay at home.

Well you're kinda making me spell it out - just wait for enough of them to die, as we did with divorce and as we will with the 8th.

Although it's been said that comprehensive reform of education here would require constitutional change, there's a lot in my view which could be done without it, if the Oireachtas were not in thrall to the most socially conservative, rural, elements in society, as typified by the fad for independents - only parties can provide leadership, independents change their views with the wind. The view touted by some that a state funded school is somehow a constitutionally protected 'religious instutution' is rather... special.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

rural

Are you waiting for the culchies to die too? :pac:
There will always be old people and culchies around, so get over it.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

As a general principle, btw, I do believe that people who are unaware or misinformed concerning the nature of some issue they're voting upon, or who have no stake in an outcome, or who are voting on some other proxy issue, should recuse themselves from voting as a matter of principle - however, that's the province of voters who are careful, honest, informed, unencumbered and rational and if recent votes are anything to judge by, such voters are becoming increasingly elusive, not to mention irrelevant.

I think it's fair to say that may be a principle you believe in, but not one that has general currency. Personally I lean towards the Australian point of view; those who have a franchise should be obliged to exercise it. It's up to the Government to ensure that the effort is made to inform the public about what they're asking them to vote on prior to the occasion. As members of a society, we all have a stake in the outcome, because the outcome is part of the shape of the society we live in. I'm suspicious of anyone finding 'reasons' to exclude people from democracy, mostly because I suspect those excluded will inexplicably end up being just the sort of people likely to disagree with the person finding the reasons.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Are you waiting for the culchies to die too? :pac:

The current Dail has a disproportionate influence from rural independent TDs who only represent a minority of opinion in their own constituencies never mind elsewhere.

There will always be old people and culchies around, so get over it.

Whooosh. The point you missed was that today's older people are less socially conservative than the ones, mostly now dead, who enthusiastically voted for the 8th and against divorce. The older people of the future will be less conservative still. Even rural people are becoming much less conservative

Absolam

Even rural people

GirlatdRockShow

Not sure of this fits in here,maybe it deserves a thread of its own....

From Atheist Ireland
"The Vatican has published a new online course for the sex education of adolescents called the Meeting Point. It was developed with the help of the Subcommittee of the Family and the Defense of Life of the Spanish Episcopal Conference.

The intention is that this new course on Vatican sex education will be introduced into all second level Irish schools. This has consequences for minorities in the education system as their Relationship, Sexuality and Moral education will be taught and controlled by the agents of a foreign state and contrary to their convictions."
http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2016/08/vatican-sex-education/

I have taken a look at some off the content and while some of the stuff is ok some of the content at the end of the course is very worrying.


13932233_1035275513188867_847353542_o.jpg

Giacomo McGubbin

What's a "rural" person ? This isn't the 50's or the Australian outback. This is a small country. Most people , even in a so called "rural" area, live only minutes from the nearest town.

Absolam

GirlatdRockShow wrote: »

Not sure of this fits in here,maybe it deserves a thread of its own....
From Atheist Ireland
"The Vatican has published a new online course for the sex education of adolescents called the Meeting Point. <...>

I really really wish Atheist Ireland would find someone better to write their articles. As soon as I read 'agents of a foreign state' I start to picture a spittle flecked author with dilated pupils typing furiously to get the TRUTH out to the world before the Opus Dei assassins shut down the latest breach in security. This one didn't disappoint, with plenty of conspiracy theorist grade nonsense right out of the gate....

Kicking off with the 'course on Vatican sex education ' (really... what is a course on Vatican sex education?), we slide elegantly into a treatise on the fact that Relationship, Sexuality and Moral education will be taught and controlled by the agents of a foreign state and contrary to the convictions of minorties. Not even arguably, or from a certain point of view, or we understand, or even we're about to make an amazing amount of stuff up to try and give the impression this is not flat out nonsense. Just.. it's a fact.
Now, because nearly all schools (90% ish) have a Catholic ethos, it's perfectly accurate to say that all schools combine the Guidelines for the Faith Formation and Development of Catholic students with the State Religious Education course and make it compulsory. Sure none of them have said they don't, so..... we can certainly say they will be able to integrate this Vatican course on sex education into compulsory religion classes, as this is part of their ethos. It must be part of their ethos; they're Catholic. Whether they actually do it, or even intend to do it, or what exactly is actually a part of their ethos, is just unimportant details. Agents of a foreign state, that's what we're keeping our eye on here.

Where do these agents of this foreign state come from? Not from a foreign state, no, much worse; Teachers are trained in places such as the Mater Dei Institute. Even ETB non designated Community Colleges are required to recruit religion teachers trained in this Institution. It doesn't actually say that in this circular from 1979, which actually says that VECs like National Schools should provide facilities for religious education and incorporate it into timetables, and that Mater Dei's qualification is one of those recognised by the Dept for teachers of religious education, but the print is pretty dodgy, making it a bit difficult to read so if you don't bother then you may get the impression that allowing people trained in this Institution to teach is the same as requiring that people trained in this Institution be the ones who teach.

Still not convinced? Well, it is clear that Patron bodies (mainly the Catholic Church because they control all the schools really, the scallywags) have complete control over how the operating rules set by the State are acted on in schools. Obviously, they're rules... but it's clear that when people obey them they, well, they control how they obey them. Because they're in charge of the places where they're obeyed. Right. So, it's clear; Catholics controlling stuff that should be controlled by the State. Move on, agents of a foreign state, remember?

Anyway, it is also clear that the State has no control over the Characteristic Spirit (ethos) of any school. How bad is that? The State doesn't control people's ethos! There are whole schools (probably all of them, sneaky Catholics) where the characteristic spirit is that of the school, and not the State. Shocking. And this can only mean that the children of atheist and secular families and religious minorities will be receiving Vatican sex education that is contrary to their convictions. Don't think about it, it can only mean this. Agents. Of. A. Foreign. State. Wake up people! The reds aren't just under the bed, they're in the schools, and the churches!

I suppose I should come clean and say I'm actually a fan of Atheist Ireland. I think they do some great work, they advocate and lobby for freedom of expression, ethical behaviour and equality, all of which I'm rather keen on, as well as quite liking Michael Nugent, who is as dedicated to helping his fellow man as any truly religious person I've ever met, so I generally don't get het up about some of the more sjw excesses that appear from time to time.
But the way some of the opinion pieces by uncredited authors are written really grinds my gears. In case that wasn't obvious. [/RANT]

recedite

GirlatdRockShow wrote: »

I have taken a look at some off the content and while some of the stuff is ok some of the content at the end of the course is very worrying.
13932233_1035275513188867_847353542_o.jpg

I agree some of it is worrying. Points 6 and 7 there are reminiscent of some people's attitude during the last century towards women wearing a short skirt; that they were asking to be raped, and if that happened it was not the man's fault.

Absolam wrote: »

Where do these agents of this foreign state come from?

Well it is stated there that this stuff was concocted by RCC personnel in Spain, and then approved for general use back in Vatican HQ.
Why should we, as Irish citizens, allow it to be handed down to kids in publicly funded Irish schools?

I think there is a small mistake in the AI article in saying that all Irish schools would accept this BS. But not all schools are using RC specific religious material. Although as AI correctly point out, the ETB schools are using it, in addition to the RC schools.

It remains to be seen which schools will decide to perpetuate this nonsense.

Also, it should be borne in mind that agents of our own state are proposing to introduce a standard ethics and religion curriculum. Therefore any schools wanting to teach this Meeting Point stuff would have to fit it in afterwards.

Also, I think it is a rather unfortunate name, because when I google Meeting Point, I find a dating website, which could lure the innocent and unsuspecting youths into experimenting with the evil described in Point 10 of the above mentioned nonsense

looksee

13932233_1035275513188867_847353542_o.jpg

Agreed, this is a shocking sample of sexism. The implication is that men have to be protected from their own impulses by women and girls, who should dress to assist in this. A bit like another culture that insists it is women's responsibility to manage male behaviour by covering themselves modestly and avoiding being seen by men. Wouldn't you think that in this day and age it could be accepted that men are capable of controlling their own behaviour.

And then it goes on to emphasise how weak men are - the claim is that they need to be assisted to control themselves. Men would be right to protest at this sexist attitude to their self control.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Well it is stated there that this stuff was concocted by RCC personnel in Spain, and then approved for general use back in Vatican HQ.
Why should we, as Irish citizens, allow it to be handed down to kids in publicly funded Irish schools?

Because we're not bigots? Whatever merits or demerits the ethical content of this syllabus has absolutely does not depend on whether the people who prepared it are Irish, or have unaccountably yielded to the temptation to belong to other nations.

Did you know that Richard Dawkins is British? He's a representative of the historic oppressor! He's paid by the British government, even! Yet his views are regularly touted on this board!

Now do you see how silly it looks, Rec? (And I'm being charitable when I say "silly". When I first read the teachdontpreach piece, it struck me that it had a tone much like the tone of the new-world-order conspiracy-theory stuff that you can find all over the internet. Is that really the vibe they want to be reaching for?)

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I agree some of it is worrying. Points 6 and 7 there are reminiscent of some people's attitude during the last century towards women wearing a short skirt; that they were asking to be raped, and if that happened it was not the man's fault.

Mmm... that may be a tad more extreme that what the content actually says, but I suppose just as you're introducing those extreme concepts to the discussion, the workbooks are also introducing thought provoking, challenging concepts. After all, the workbook is about 'True Love', the section is 'Dating' and the eight subjects are introduced as " Choose three of these topics and discuss their content'. So whilst I agree you're right in saying there are some odd attitudes out there, it may be a little stretch to imply the programme is endorsing them; though it is discussing them. nozzferrahhtoo is fond of saying "context is everything son", which would appear to have some relevance to that screenshot.

recedite wrote: »

Well it is stated there that this stuff was concocted by RCC personnel in Spain, and then approved for general use back in Vatican HQ.
Why should we, as Irish citizens, allow it to be handed down to kids in publicly funded Irish schools?

These RCC personnel... that's the group of married couples in Spain who put the project together? And how is there a Vatican HQ? If it is a HQ, then surely it's the Vatican, the Catholic HQ? I think we're seeing the same sloppy approach to concocting deliberately pejorative language as the erstwhile author employed here. Surely knowing that you're having to jump through hoops just to give the impression that something can be seen in a bad light is a bit of a clue that you're going out of your way to be dishonest? But sure... why should we as Irish citizens, allow eduational ideas from other countries to be handed down to kids in publicly funded Irish schools? Let's get rid of those kindergardens, bloody Germans, and those English National Schools too. In fact, we could ditch all languages except Irish, most of physics, chemistry, biology, geography,history, even maths. Who wants those foreign ideas anyways, eh?

recedite wrote: »

I think there is a small mistake in the AI article in saying that all Irish schools would accept this BS. But not all schools are using RC specific religious material. Although as AI correctly point out, the ETB schools are using it, in addition to the RC schools. It remains to be seen which schools will decide to perpetuate this nonsense.

Indeed, it may we be a 'small' mistake to say any schools at all will use this material, never mind every school, since I don't believe any have said they will yet? Not that they shouldn't if they want to; there's no reason to think it's not perfectly appropriate material for children receiving a Catholic religious and moral education in accordance with their parents wishes.

recedite wrote: »

Also, it should be borne in mind that agents of our own state are proposing to introduce a standard ethics and religion curriculum. Therefore any schools wanting to teach this Meeting Point stuff would have to fit it in afterwards.

Well yes; the new 'religion, beliefs and ethics' class with be taught at primary level, whereas this course will (or may) be taught afterwards, at second level.

recedite wrote: »

Also, I think it is a rather unfortunate name, because when I google Meeting Point, I find a dating website, which could lure the innocent and unsuspecting youths into experimenting with the evil described in Point 10 of the above mentioned nonsense

It will probably give them a perspective on what they discuss so, though they may be confused by the fact that there's no Point 10 on that page. Nothing at all sloppy about those criticisms, no sirree

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

13932233_1035275513188867_847353542_o.jpg
Agreed, this is a shocking sample of sexism. The implication is that men have to be protected from their own impulses by women and girls, who should dress to assist in this. A bit like another culture that insists it is women's responsibility to manage male behaviour by covering themselves modestly and avoiding being seen by men. Wouldn't you think that in this day and age it could be accepted that men are capable of controlling their own behaviour. And then it goes on to emphasise how weak men are - the claim is that they need to be assisted to control themselves. Men would be right to protest at this sexist attitude to their self control.

I have a feeling this could turn into a repeat of the 'Mary says yes' thread. Most assuredly if instead of what's written, you address what you imagine is implied, and then move on to what you believe is implied is a bit like, which leads to deriding people for not being able to accept things a bit like what was implied, not that that's in the material either but still, let's ignore that it doesn't go on from there at all, and pretend a claim is being made rather than a topic offered for discussion instead, because then we'll end up with something utterly outrageous and just the sort of stuff that ought to be banned forthwith leaving everyone involved totally ashamed of themselves.
Read the entire set of course material objectively, and understanding that it's presenting a moral view you don't share (and it's not wrong not to share your moral view) and maybe it's not so disgraceful after all. Maybe?

Still, I suspect that's a long way from school patronage, so maybe GirlatdRockShow is right; if people want to discuss it it may deserve it's own thread.

smacl

First educational institute that came to mind as suitable to be taught this material when I read it was St. Patricks College Maynooth :pac:

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because we're not bigots? Whatever merits or demerits the ethical content of this syllabus has absolutely does not depend on whether the people who prepared it are Irish, or have unaccountably yielded to the temptation to belong to other nations.

Of course. But the question was asked about why they would be considered agents of a foreign state. That foreign state is the Vatican or the Holy See.

On the other hand, this is the kind of thing being proposed by agents of our own state.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

Read the entire set of course material objectively, and understanding that it's presenting a moral view you don't share (and it's not wrong not to share your moral view) and maybe it's not so disgraceful after all. Maybe?

.

I don't share the moral view that women in short skirts are sluts. And, objectively, it's disgraceful to present this.

expectationlost

Go ahead for Educate Together school in Castlebar http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2016/08/10/4124663-go-ahead-for-educate-together-school-in-castlebar/

Hotblack Desiato

The report describes it as "non-denominational" though :rolleyes:

recedite

Very sloppy journalism. How can it "hope to open by the end of this month" when the time for lodging the almost inevitable appeal is not even up yet?

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I don't share the moral view that women in short skirts are sluts. And, objectively, it's disgraceful to present this.

Well.... you're presenting it? The course certainly doesn't present it, the closest it gets is offering the topic "Girls should be careful with how they dress in order to not confuse men. The message that girls send out is that the best thing they have to offer is their body." for discussion. After having watched the relevant video, obviously. Which is a girl talking about how she thinks people trade love for sex and sex for love, and her decision to change her perspective on how she deals with her sexuality. Personally, I'm not a big fan of all the points of view, but I wouldn't want to say people shouldn't even discuss it, especially when it's 17 year olds dealing with the material; it's not like they haven't got some opinions on the subject already that they may want to discuss.

Objectively, not wanting something to be presented for discussion sounds disgracefully like censorship....

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Of course. But the question was asked about why they would be considered agents of a foreign state. That foreign state is the Vatican or the Holy See. On the other hand, this is the kind of thing being proposed by agents of our own state.

In fairness, the question wasn't asked; they simply aren't agents of a foreign state. The author claimed the course will be taught and controlled by the agents of a foreign state, and you told us that this stuff was concocted by RCC personnel in Spain. In both instances, considering either set of people to be agents of a foreign state is just a rather desperately poor attempt to create a prejudicial impression. Those who will be teaching and controlling the course are not employed by Vatican City (the State) or the Holy See (the governmental entity), nor are the group of married couples in Spain who put the project together.

It's hard to see how a proposed new mandatory Primary School curriculum could be considered to be something on the other hand of a potential new Secondary School course for such patrons as want to use it, but you are correct in saying the NCAA are employed by the State of Ireland to act on it's behalf.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Those who will be teaching and controlling the course are not employed by Vatican City (the State) or the Holy See (the governmental entity)

This is getting a bit pedantic, even by the standards of the A&A forum .... but I will indulge you.
Those who control it are in the Vatican, as they are the ones who sponsored and approved it. And AFAIK it is not an a-la-carte menu. As an Irish RC school, you can take it, but you do not create your own version of it. Like a version with condoms for example.

Those who teach it would be located in Ireland, and on the state payroll. But oddly enough, whenever there is a whiff of religious discrimination in the recruitment, the BOM will always claim to be their employer, and not the state. Therefore, not agents of the state. As the BOM is controlled by the church (through ex-officio members such as the parish priest or the patron's representative) and as the staff "employed" by them are bound to uphold the "ethos" of the school patron, then they are in effect agents of the patron, who is most likely the Bishop. The local Bishop is himself an agent of the RCC church, and his ultimate boss is the Pope, who is the head of a foreign state. Therefore, right down the chain of command, they are agents of a foreign state.

Of course, the whole chain is so slippery you'd have as much chance of getting a full tax return out of Starbucks or Apple as you would have of getting the RCC to accept responsibility for something it would prefer to keep officially at arms length.

Bristolscale7

Are the preists on BOMs non-voting? They serve on hiring committees so they must vote.

Samaris

Absolam wrote: »

Objectively, not wanting something to be presented for discussion sounds disgracefully like censorship....

Teach the controversy.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

This is getting a bit pedantic, even by the standards of the A&A forum .... but I will indulge you. Those who control it are in the Vatican, as they are the ones who sponsored and approved it. And AFAIK it is not an a-la-carte menu. As an Irish RC school, you can take it, but you do not create your own version of it. Like a version with condoms for example.

Well, I don't know about pedantic... but if you're claiming that the agents of a foreign state who will be controlling the course in all second level Irish schools according to the author are actually all in the Vatican because somone somewhere there has signed off on the idea at some stage, well, I think what you're indulging here is not me, but your imagination!

recedite wrote: »

Those who teach it would be located in Ireland, and on the state payroll.

But, actually on the school payroll. For the sake of clarity; since we don't want to wander off mistakenly thinking that anyone paid with money that comes from the State is an agent of the State do we?

recedite wrote: »

But oddly enough, whenever there is a whiff of religious discrimination in the recruitment, the BOM will always claim to be their employer, and not the state. Therefore, not agents of the state.

Those BOMs! Always going round taking the fall for the State, who they have no obligation to all, since they're controlled by the church... real menschs, eh?

recedite wrote: »

As the BOM is controlled by the church (through ex-officio members such as the parish priest or the patron's representative) and as the staff "employed" by them are bound to uphold the "ethos" of the school patron, then they are in effect agents of the patron, who is most likely the Bishop. The local Bishop is himself an agent of the RCC church, and his ultimate boss is the Pope, who is the head of a foreign state. Therefore, right down the chain of command, they are agents of a foreign state.

Maybe this all isn't so much pedantry as it is conspiracy theory? it's just the idea that employees are so bound by ethos that they are compelled to in effect (so... not in fact) act as agents of a foreign state is a tad fantastic.... before we even start leaping from assumed ex officio 'control' of BoMs, to Bishops are really agents, and the Pope is an ex-officio head of State..... Seriously, even if you don't realise the assertion dies as soon as you say 'in effect' rather than 'in fact', if you need to concoct so meandering a series of allusions and half truths, you must realise yourself the assertion doesn't bear even cursory scrutiny.

recedite wrote: »

Of course, the whole chain is so slippery you'd have as much chance of getting a full tax return out of Starbucks or Apple as you would have of getting the RCC to accept responsibility for something it would prefer to keep officially at arms length.

That tends to be the way of fantasies though... ever so hard to nail down if you have to stick with a factual rendition


I think we can say for sure this has passed beyond any A&A level of defensive pedantry into full blown CT thread territory... it's well beyond school patronage at this stage!

Absolam

Samaris wrote: »

Teach the controversy.

I'm not quite sure they're advocating teaching hypotheses over theories here; only offering a number of topics for discussion. But still, there's no point in only discussing things everyone has the same opinion on... I shudder to think what A&A would be like if we couldn't discuss the prevailing point of view.... and just imagine if we were all hormonal seventeen year olds with that assured self righteousness and world weary certainty