School patronage

recedite

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I ran out of breath and fainted reading the bolded part. Did you copy and paste that from somewhere?

Its a mish-mash of extracts from the Constitution (which supposedly makes it irrefutable) combined with his own assertions (which modify and clarify those extracts to suit his own particular point of view)

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

as an example, P was talking about in term or the Republic which is basically a catholic /protestant system as well

Yes, that's what I said, you introduced Northern Ireland as an example of diversity. P included Protestants, Muslims, Jews, etc.. add Catholics and we're up to four... that's 100% more than what you were offering as an example of diversity.

silverharp wrote: »

stating a point as being incorrect doesnt carry much weight

I know.. but I did give a much fuller rendition earlier, so maybe think of it as a synopsis in an effort to avoid too much long windedness?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its a mish-mash of extracts from the Constitution (which supposedly makes it irrefutable) combined with his own assertions (which modify and clarify those extracts to suit his own particular point of view)

Well, that's fairly close I suppose. If we were to frame a discussion about the use of hospitals according to the framework which exists for the use of schools, that would be how it would look, was the point I was trying to get across. Not that such a framework is irrefutable, but it is it the existing context, modified to suit Gebgbegbs premise. I'm not sure it necessarily suits my point of view; I wouldn't be inclined to the view, as I said, that hospitals are any more analogous to schools than they are to forestry services.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

Well, that's fairly close I suppose. If we were to frame a discussion about the use of hospitals according to the framework which exists for the use of schools, that would be how it would look, was the point I was trying to get across. Not that such a framework is irrefutable, but it is it the existing context, modified to suit Gebgbegbs premise. I'm not sure it necessarily suits my point of view; I wouldn't be inclined to the view, as I said, that hospitals are any more analogous to schools than they are to forestry services.

True, it's not analogous to Barbie's dream castle either.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

True, it's not analogous to Barbie's dream castle either.

There you go then; trying to draw a corollary in this regard between State funded institutions is about as useful as likening them to Barbie's dream castle.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, that's what I said, you introduced Northern Ireland as an example of diversity. P included Protestants, Muslims, Jews, etc.. add Catholics and we're up to four... that's 100% more than what you were offering as an example of diversity

Diversity is a scale. If 100% of schools had one religion as the ethos there would be no diversity in education. In the Republic ~95% of schools have a Catholic ethos, in the North its probably around a half. NI is more diverse than the Republic looking at it that way

Absolam wrote: »

I know.. but I did give a much fuller rendition earlier, so maybe think of it as a synopsis in an effort to avoid too much long windedness?

their choices lead to a visible segregation that you don't see in other countries. If heaven forbid I was to move to NI I being judged to be not a protestant would not be inclined to live in certain areas or send my kids to certain schools. As such my choices would be limited because of the self imposed segregation . Its their right of course but its a negative in terms of the social cohesion that was mentioned earlier

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Diversity is a scale. If 100% of schools had one religion as the ethos there would be no diversity in education. In the Republic ~95% of schools have a Catholic ethos, in the North its probably around a half. NI is more diverse than the Republic looking at it that way

I don't want to stray too far off the topic, but I really don't think diversity is a scale? Diversity is the quality or state of having many different forms, or types, or ideas etc. Two simply isn't many... not even at the lower end of a scale. It's just two. Two things is not an example of diversity being an issue... but it's ok. It was just a bad choice.

silverharp wrote: »

their choices lead to a visible segregation that you don't see in other countries.

Nope; separation. It's not segregation for the reasons I gave earlier, it's just separation. People are allowed to choose to separate themselves.

silverharp wrote: »

If heaven forbid I was to move to NI I being judged to be not a protestant would not be inclined to live in certain areas or send my kids to certain schools. As such my choices would be limited because of the self imposed segregation . Its their right of course but its a negative in terms of the social cohesion that was mentioned earlier

You would limit your choices by separating yourself. You would be segregated only if someone limited your choices for you. Choice versus imposition, again.

recedite

In certain parts of NI they would make it their business to find out the religion of someone new in the area, which they can do very quickly. If they didn't like the answer they could turn quite nasty. I don't think you can really call that "self-segregation" on the part of the newcomer; only on the part of those who are imposing the segregation. But then, that is usually the way with segregation. It is often enforced by one "in-group" against "others".
Even if another group retaliates in kind, that is still not "self-segregation" in the sense that an individual person cannot move freely from one group to the other.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I don't want to stray too far off the topic, but I really don't think diversity is a scale? Diversity is the quality or state of having many different forms, or types, or ideas etc. Two simply isn't many... not even at the lower end of a scale. It's just two. Two things is not an example of diversity being an issue... but it's ok. It was just a bad choice.
Nope; separation. It's not segregation for the reasons I gave earlier, it's just separation. People are allowed to choose to separate themselves.

You would limit your choices by separating yourself. You would be segregated only if someone limited your choices for you. Choice versus imposition, again.

for brevity I will go with recedite's response.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

for brevity I will go with recedite's response.

Sure... recedite actually said what I was saying all along; "I don't think you can really call that "self-segregation" on the part of the newcomer; only on the part of those who are imposing the segregation. But then, that is usually the way with segregation. It is often enforced by one "in-group" against "others"."

Segregation is imposed, association is a choice.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Sure... recedite actually said what I was saying all along; "I don't think you can really call that "self-segregation" on the part of the newcomer; only on the part of those who are imposing the segregation. But then, that is usually the way with segregation. It is often enforced by one "in-group" against "others"."

Segregation is imposed, association is a choice.

but clarify the discussion point? Im saying there is self imposed segregation in the North, you seemed to be calling it free association. this segregation is reinforced by the school system, integrated schools are only about 10 of schools up there. or put it another way their free association choices made under an environment of community norms and pressures means their choices have negative consequences.
Whether forcing change in the school system would work Im not sure but it would seem better that that both traditions educate themselves around each other rather than growing up in bubbles thus reinforcing the in group and out group

expectationlost

Castlebar Educate Together opens despite objection http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28482-castlebar-educate-together-opens-despite-objection#.V8b5qvmaETM.twitter in a a first-floor office unit

smacl

expectationlost wrote: »

Castlebar Educate Together opens despite objection http://www.mayonews.ie/news/28482-castlebar-educate-together-opens-despite-objection#.V8b5qvmaETM.twitter in a a first-floor office unit

Stepaside second level also opened on Monday. Delighted that my daughter is going there and she is over the moon with the place.

vicwatson

vicwatson wrote: »

What an illegal joke

Why do Gaelscoils ask?

Sorr, but why do Gaelscoils ask religion on the enrolment form?

recedite

Gaelscoileanna are not all the same. Some are multi-denominational and some are not. Some have their own special word to describe themselves; "interdenominational" which apparently means "RC with protestants allowed to attend, but not specifically catered for". Presumably Hindus are not welcome, then :pac:

But regardless of the religious affiliation, I don't think its unreasonable for a school or a hospital to ask about religion. In the event of clergy visiting they should know which of the clientele to approach, and which to ignore. Its not illegal to gather such statistics in Ireland AFAIK, although in some countries it is.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

but clarify the discussion point?

Sure; you said Northern Ireland is an example of diversity, and that diversity is aimed at reinforcing segregation and I said I don't think it is, and the idea that allowing distinct ethnic/religious/cultural groups to operate schools for their members is reinforcing segregation is pretty dubious, in addition to the fact that you haven't shown segregation is there to reinforce in the first place.

silverharp wrote: »

Im saying there is self imposed segregation in the North, you seemed to be calling it free association. this segregation is reinforced by the school system, integrated schools are only about 10 of schools up there. or put it another way their free association choices made under an environment of community norms and pressures means their choices have negative consequences.

I'm saying that when people choose who they associate with, that is free association. Segregation occurs when those same people aren't allowed that choice, and are deliberately restricted to groups where they 'supposedly' belong. Segregation is imposed, association is a choice. You're choosing to use the term 'self segregation', and I can't help but think it's not because you think people are actually being segregated, but because you know they're not, but you still want to ascribe the connotation of segregation to a choice people make for themselves which you don't agree with.

silverharp wrote: »

Whether forcing change in the school system would work Im not sure but it would seem better that that both traditions educate themselves around each other rather than growing up in bubbles thus reinforcing the in group and out group

As long as Catholics aren't forced to go to Catholic schools, and Protestants to Protestant ones, I think there has to be at least some respect for the choices people make with regard to how their children are educated. I've no objection to allowing people to choose schools they want, but forcing them seems to me to be the same kind of evil as segregation.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Gaelscoileanna are not all the same. Some are multi-denominational and some are not. Some have their own special word to describe themselves; "interdenominational" which apparently means "RC with protestants allowed to attend, but not specifically catered for". Presumably Hindus are not welcome, then :pac:

But regardless of the religious affiliation, I don't think its unreasonable for a school or a hospital to ask about religion. In the event of clergy visiting they should know which of the clientele to approach, and which to ignore. Its not illegal to gather such statistics in Ireland AFAIK, although in some countries it is.

Ironically, although hospitals do collect religious identification data on admission, they don't pass it on to the chaplain; to do so would infringe data protection and privacy legislation. Besides, the chaplain's terms of appointment (and professional ethics) require him to offer pastoral care to anyone who wants it, of any religion or none; he shouldn't discriminate between those whose religious identification is the same as his, and others.

So, regardless of what answer (if any) you gave to the "religion?" question on admission, you may be approached by a chaplain offering support. And if you don't want support you can decline it, again without offering any religious identification.

If you'd rather not be approached by a chaplain (or if you particularly do want to be approached) tell the nurses on the ward. They'll pass that on to the chaplain.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; you said Northern Ireland is an example of diversity, and that diversity is aimed at reinforcing segregation and I said I don't think it is, and the idea that allowing distinct ethnic/religious/cultural groups to operate schools for their members is reinforcing segregation is pretty dubious, in addition to the fact that you haven't shown segregation is there to reinforce in the first place.

I'm saying that when people choose who they associate with, that is free association. Segregation occurs when those same people aren't allowed that choice, and are deliberately restricted to groups where they 'supposedly' belong. Segregation is imposed, association is a choice. You're choosing to use the term 'self segregation', and I can't help but think it's not because you think people are actually being segregated, but because you know they're not, but you still want to ascribe the connotation of segregation to a choice people make for themselves which you don't agree with.
As long as Catholics aren't forced to go to Catholic schools, and Protestants to Protestant ones, I think there has to be at least some respect for the choices people make with regard to how their children are educated. I've no objection to allowing people to choose schools they want, but forcing them seems to me to be the same kind of evil as segregation.

if you don't feel safe sending your kids to a particular school then that is not just the result of people freely associating. Its using self segregation to protect or advance a cultural goal. I would certainly have to judge the society negatively on the way they go about it especially as it involves passing on these beliefs to the next generation.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

if you don't feel safe sending your kids to a particular school then that is not just the result of people freely associating. Its using self segregation to protect or advance a cultural goal. I would certainly have to judge the society negatively on the way they go about it especially as it involves passing on these beliefs to the next generation.

If you choose not to send your kids to a school you don't feel safe with you're not being segregated; you're making a choice based on your perception of safety. How you decide to judge the society as a result is fairly irrelevant to what is actually happening.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

If you choose not to send your kids to a school you don't feel safe with you're not being segregated; you're making a choice based on your perception of safety. How you decide to judge the society as a result is fairly irrelevant to what is actually happening.

if you isolate or divide that is segregation, its not specifically a legal term. Why would judging be irrelevant?

vicwatson

recedite wrote: »

Gaelscoileanna are not all the same. Some are multi-denominational and some are not. Some have their own special word to describe themselves; "interdenominational" which apparently means "RC with protestants allowed to attend, but not specifically catered for". Presumably Hindus are not welcome, then :pac:

But regardless of the religious affiliation, I don't think its unreasonable for a school or a hospital to ask about religion. In the event of clergy visiting they should know which of the clientele to approach, and which to ignore. Its not illegal to gather such statistics in Ireland AFAIK, although in some countries it is.

So one needs to lie if atheist?

Hotblack Desiato

depending on the admissions policy and how oversubscribed the school is, it may disadvantage you or it may not.

If saying your child is in the damp head club would skip them to the top of the queue in that school, the school will ask for a baptismal certificate to prove it.

recedite

vicwatson wrote: »

So one needs to lie if atheist?

Nobody needs to lie.
I'd say quite a few of us here on this forum have got that letter from a school explaining that there is a very long waiting list, and due to the requirements of this "baptismal cert", or that "list of preferred religions" our child is "unlikely" (meaning not) going to be offered a place in the 4 or 5 years time when they would be hoping to start.
You don't have to lie. You can apply elsewhere, and keep your principles and your dignity. But never forget, and never forgive.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

if you isolate or divide that is segregation, its not specifically a legal term. Why would judging be irrelevant?

I think you're trying to be a bit vague with your language in order to try and muddle a point out of it. If you isolate or divide people from others then you are segregating them, because segregation is an imposition. If you choose to isolate or divide yourself from others, you are not being segregated, you are isolating or dividing yourself, which is your choice (and right).

The fact that you will judge a society negatively based on their choices is irrelevant to whether they are being segregated or choosing to associate as they please, because they are doing it regardless of your judgement.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Nobody needs to lie.
I'd say quite a few of us here on this forum have got that letter from a school explaining that there is a very long waiting list, and due to the requirements of this "baptismal cert", or that "list of preferred religions" our child is "unlikely" (meaning not) going to be offered a place in the 4 or 5 years time when they would be hoping to start.
You don't have to lie. You can apply elsewhere, and keep your principles and your dignity. But never forget, and never forgive.

In fact, the less people who present baptismal certs the better it is for those who have none; the school will accept all those who present them and still have plenty of room for those who don't. Then everyone will just have to argue about how local is really local as the crow flies or by secondary roads, and how many siblings is too many siblings to be counted towards getting a child in :pac:

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

In fact, the less people who present baptismal certs the better it is for those who have none; the school will accept all those who present them and still have plenty of room for those who don't. Then everyone will just have to argue about how local is really local as the crow flies or by secondary roads, and how many siblings is too many siblings to be counted towards getting a child in :pac:

Why stop there? No baptism certs =better for everyone.

Peregrinus

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Why stop there? No baptism certs =better for everyone.

Not really, since the number of places and the number of applicants hasn't changed. If there was a shortage of places before, there will be the same shortage now. All that will have changed will be the grounds on which you discriminate between those who get a place and those who don't. That, obviously, won't be "better for all"; it will be better for some and worse for others.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I think you're trying to be a bit vague with your language in order to try and muddle a point out of it. If you isolate or divide people from others then you are segregating them, because segregation is an imposition. If you choose to isolate or divide yourself from others, you are not being segregated, you are isolating or dividing yourself, which is your choice (and right).

The fact that you will judge a society negatively based on their choices is irrelevant to whether they are being segregated or choosing to associate as they please, because they are doing it regardless of your judgement.

Im not trying to be vague, there is a definition below, I fully understand its not being done officially by the state and there are no laws and Ive not said its not their right but it is still valid to comment on it

Segregation is a system that keeps different groups separate from each other, either through physical dividers or using social pressures and laws.

Im not sure what the point of saying they will do it regardless? its not really a test of whether opinions should be given or not now is it? if nothing else its a useful example of not wanting to replicate the attitudes elsewhere. it might even be a consideration if there was ever to be a reunification vote for example.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

Im not trying to be vague, there is a definition below, I fully understand its not being done officially by the state and there are no laws and Ive not said its not their right but it is still valid to comment on it

I never mentioned it being done officially by the state or laws? But still, the definition you're offering concurs with what I'm saying; a system that separates groups is imposing that separation, regardless of the means. Whereas people choosing to be separate is distinctly different; not segregation, choice.

silverharp wrote: »

Im not sure what the point of saying they will do it regardless? its not really a test of whether opinions should be given or not now is it? if nothing else its a useful example of not wanting to replicate the attitudes elsewhere. it might even be a consideration if there was ever to be a reunification vote for example.

Well, what would you say the point of tacking your judgement of 'what a society does' onto your argument for 'what segregation is' was? It's not like one follows the other, does it?

Still, since the characterisation of choice as segregation is fairly tangential, and further tangents even more so, maybe there's not much more to be said on it.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I never mentioned it being done officially by the state or laws? But still, the definition you're offering concurs with what I'm saying; a system that separates groups is imposing that separation, regardless of the means. Whereas people choosing to be separate is distinctly different; not segregation, choice.

and the system is social pressure, its in a state of segregation. there is nothing intrinsic to Catholicism or Protestantism which suggest they must live apart and educate their kids separately, its an ethnic/cultural turf war.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, what would you say the point of tacking your judgement of 'what a society does' onto your argument for 'what segregation is' was? It's not like one follows the other, does it?

Still, since the characterisation of choice as segregation is fairly tangential, and further tangents even more so, maybe there's not much more to be said on it.

its the consequences of segregation which have significant downsides and are worth commenting on.