School patronage

Mark Hamill

tretorn wrote: »

But nobody except you wants 100% state run schools.

The vast majority of parents are happy with the choice at the moment, there is no indoctrination going on in Catholic schools, they are Educate together schools and have always welcomed children of all faith and none. They will accommodate children who dont want to be in the religion class and the religion class in primary school is about being children being nice to each other and who would object to lessons like that.

As I have said before, and you keep ignoring, people are apathetic. They are not happy with choice, they don't even think about it. They were indoctrinated in school to just accept RCC control in school, so they inflict that on their kids, and everyone elses, without thought.
This is why people spout nonsense like "religious class is just telling you to be nice to each other" (begs the question, what has that got to do with religion?) whilst demonizing and throwing slurs at every foreigner group to defend their schools.
It's why they are happy with their kids being taught by an organisation who have abused, assaulted, sold and murdered children in this country for decades.
The RCC is neither qualified nor capable to teach our kids anything.

tretorn wrote: »

I cant understand why people dont want their children to learn about Catholicism but then they go on to say ET schools are great because children learn about the Muslim religion, the Hindu religion, the Jewish religion etc

And who actually said this?

tretorn wrote: »

what is the point in Irish children learning about Hindu customs, its totally irrelevant and I would rather my children went for a walk than sit and learn anything about the Koran for example.

But didn't you say that muslim schools in the UK are wrong because are closed in and don't teach about anything else? Why does Catholicism get a pass?

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You ignored the supporting point in my post:
If we start going by the numbers, then we would have to have some schools to suit the likes of tretorn, who a few pages ago admitted that they just don't want their kids mixing with foreigners in school.
Should there be separate funding for racially discriminating schools.

Nope, the funding would all come from the same source on the basis that the national curriculum is taught in the school. If tretorn wants to establish schools to provide education which is founded upon their particular philosophy, they shouldn’t be excluded from applying for funding if they are willing to teach the national curriculum. Some schools don’t, and therefore receive no funding from the State.

And as religious schools alter the curriculum to enforce religious formation, it is not equal to a purely secular education.

I don’t think anyone argued that it was? You argued that there should be a baseline, the national curriculum is that baseline, so whether a school is religious or secular is irrelevant. You asked earlier why does it matter what people want - I think you see now why it matters a lot what people want.

One eyed Jack

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As I have said before, and you keep ignoring, people are apathetic.

The RCC is neither qualified nor capable to teach our kids anything.

You can speak for yourself there Mark, on both counts. I fully support the establishment of secular schools for those parents that want a secular education for their children. That support in no way interferes with my support for religious education for those parents that want a religious education for their children.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can speak for yourself there Mark, on both counts. I fully support the establishment of secular schools for those parents that want a secular education for their children. That support in no way interferes with my support for religious education for those parents that want a religious education for their children.

You've got a false dichotomy there. Making a child attend a school with religious ethos and specific faith formation differing from their own beliefs interferes with that child's legal human right to freedom of religion, see EHRC article 9. This is not true of a secular school, which merely shifts the responsibility of faith formation back to the family. So while the secular school might not suit some religious parents, on the basis they may have to actually attend mass (God forbid!) for faith formation of their child, having the child attend a secular school does not violate their human rights.

The state is obliged to provide an education to the children of all of its citizens. An education that implicitly violates that child's human rights fall short of this obligation. Choice is fine, but funding discrimination is not.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

You've got a false dichotomy there. Making a child attend a school with religious ethos and specific faith formation differing from their own beliefs interferes with that child's legal human right to freedom of religion, see EHRC article 9.

I thought it would surely have been understood that when I said religious education, that whether it was Catholic, Protestant, Islam, etc, all types of religious education would come under that heading. Of course I wouldn’t want parents to have to enroll their children in a school with an ethos they don’t support - not good for the child themselves, not good for the other children either.

This is not true of a secular school, which merely shifts the responsibility of faith formation back to the family. So while the secular school might not suit some religious parents, on the basis they may have to actually attend mass (God forbid!) for faith formation of their child, having the child attend a secular school does not violate their human rights.

Secular schools don’t shift the responsibility for faith formation back on the family, faith formation starts with the family in the first place and continues in school if that is the type of formal education parents want for their children. Having a child attend religious ethos school at the behest of the child’s parents is not a violation of the child’s human rights either. The fact is that there is plenty of opportunity for secular schools to establish themselves without ever threatening religious schools or violating anyone’s human rights.

The state is obliged to provide an education to the children of all of its citizens. An education that implicitly violates that child's human rights fall short of this obligation. Choice is fine, but funding discrimination is not.

No, the State is not obliged to provide an education to the children of all it’s citizens. The State is obligated to provide for the education of all it’s citizens, and it would be the education providers are discriminatory if they were being discriminatory. They have to be discriminatory in some respect simply because of the limits of their infrastructure means they can only cater to so many children. Nobody is funding discrimination either btw, the State is funding education, and education providers who discriminate provide choices for parents. It’d be great if there were more education providers providing more choices in education and we’ve seen in the last couple of years in this country at least that there are education providers willing to provide alternative models of education besides Catholic or ET models of education.


The Irish Constitution: Education and Human Rights in Recognised Schools

Odhinn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

....................
Secular schools don’t shift the responsibility for faith formation back on the family, faith formation starts with the family in the first place and continues in school if that is the type of formal education parents want for their children.

That might be the ideal, but the fact is notoriously otherwise.

One eyed Jack

Odhinn wrote: »

That might be the ideal, but the fact is notoriously otherwise.

That’s a matter for the family though, not one that the State needs to be policing, IMO.

Hotblack Desiato

tretorn wrote: »

Everyone is no hypocritical about this, you will probably find the parents in North Dublin said divesting is a great idea but they thought it wouldnt be their schools that would be touched, they changed their minds once it dawned on them that instead of a nativity play with Silent Night and Away in a Manger their Christmas concert would be something Disney like with Jingle Bells and Santa kissed Mama etc. People actually dont appreciate how much tradition means until they cant practice their traditions anymore.

How much tradition means to them, blah blah blah :rolleyes:

It's not true that nativity plays are or ever were an essential part of the Irish Catholic School Experience®. Complete and utter fake news.

Navity plays are a relatively recent English import as far as I can see. In the 70s and 80s they were only heard of on British TV shows.

I went to an RC school, never had a nativity play. My wife went to an RC school, same.

My kids go to a CoI primary, it doesn't have a nativity play either (has a non-religious play at the end of the year though, whch is more than either of us got as kids, because our teachers couldn't be arsed )

Yet people like you will swear blind that parents and kids will be crying rivers of tears because of the evil nasty people in Educate Together

It's a load of the last word of the title of the Sex Pistols' first (only, really) album.

If it really bothers them that much, it's not as if Roman Catholic schools are going to cease to exist or anything.

Yet non-catholics are always being told we should drive our kids for an hour to a school, or move, or emigrate, or set up our own school :rolleyes: if we don't want our kids to be subjected to nonsense for up to half of the school day

FFS have a bit of cop on.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a matter for the family though, not one that the State needs to be policing, IMO.

You miss the point. Which is that faith formation is inflicted on children in the Irish education system against the wishes of parents, in violation of both our Constitution and the human rights of the parents.

Hotblack Desiato

tretorn wrote: »

teacher herself doesnt bring her children to the school, she chooses the local Gaelscoil in the hope those parents with poor english wont send their children to the Gaelscoil.

So she doesn't want to send her child to a school where most of the parents don't speak natively the language of instruction - English.
Her bright idea is to send her child to a school where all or almost all of the parents don't speak the language of instruction - Irish.

Logic...

Anyway, all the filipinos that live nearby stick to each other too, marriage is hard work so why make it even harder by marrying outside your culture

Wow, racist much?

what if your marriage breaks up and your partner wants to go back to the Filipines, what happens to the children then.

So nobody should ever marry anyone from outside their own country?
Within Ireland would you extend your disapproval to inter-provincial marriages, or perhaps even inter-county marriages??

The Filipinos are very religious so they will choose the RC school over the ET school. I dont know what religion most of them are, probably Catholic. The local ones choose the single sex RC secondary schools too and they are very happy with their choice. The children dont mix with local children though, they seem to spend their time watching cartoons on enormous TVS in their bedrooms, I like the Filipinos, they are boring and hard to talk too but very nice, sweet but a bit dim I suppose.

Wow, racist much?

Hotblack Desiato

tretorn wrote: »

The vast majority of parents are happy with the choice at the moment

The vast majority of parents have little or no choice, and have never been asked what choice they'd like to have.

there is no indoctrination going on in Catholic schools

LOL it's the very reason they exist.

they are Educate together schools and have always welcomed children of all faith and none.

They are not. Educate Together is a different patron from the RCC.

They have not been. Until it was outlawed, RC schools put the children of non-RC parents at the bottom of the admissions list. Welcoming to all, my arse.

They will accommodate children who dont want to be in the religion class

Yes by forcing them to sit there silently in the religion class, and often not be allowed to do other schoolwork, or even read a book, lest they gain an "unfair advantage" :rolleyes:

and the religion class in primary school is about being children being nice to each other and who would object to lessons like that.

Last week some kids in my childens' school came home in tears after being told how JC was supposedly nailed to a cross.

I cant understand why people dont want their children to learn about Catholicism but then they go on to say ET schools are great because children learn about the Muslim religion, the Hindu religion, the Jewish religion etc what is the point in Irish children learning about Hindu customs, its totally irrelevant and I would rather my children went for a walk than sit and learn anything about the Koran for example.

Learning ABOUT religions is a good thing. Understanding your neighbour's customs etc. We have had far too much sectarianism on this island already.

As an avowed atheist, learning ABOUT religions is like an inoculation. Your immune system finds out about what the disease is like, without catching it

I just dont get this at all, is it just so the parents can get a warm fuzzy feeling about how cool and liberal they are.

Wow you've cracked it. And here I was thinking it was about respect for my family's sincerely held beliefs, our human rights, and inclusiveness in society.

/sarc

robindch

tretorn wrote: »

Its not my problem to worry about their integration and english, its my job to make sure my children go to the best school in the neighbourhood and if a teacher tells me most of her Junior infant class have english as a second language then I scratch that school off my list, teacher herself doesnt bring her children to the school, she chooses the local Gaelscoil in the hope those parents with poor english wont send their children to the Gaelscoil.

Its -> It's; english -> English; its -> it's; Junior -> junior; english -> English; doesnt -> doesn't; "poor english" -> "poor English"; wont -> won't;

For somebody who complains about poor English in others, you seem curiously uninterested in, or unable to produce, good English yourself.

tretorn wrote: »

[...] I like the Filipinos, they are boring and hard to talk too but very nice, sweet but a bit dim I suppose.

too -> to; grammar lossage after "talk", and predictable forum rule breach after "sweet but".

As per your most recent warning, you can now enjoy a brief holiday from the forum, starting now and expiring tomorrow, during which you can entertain yourself with:

1. a list of Filipino inventions and discoveries; and
2. an online copy of Strunk and White's excellent Elements of Style which should help you learn some of the English about whose absence in others, you seem so happy to whinge.(*)

(*) English grammar pedants will appreciate the avoidance of a terminal preposition.

evolving_doors

Can you get him to hug a Muslim too?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

. . . (*) English grammar pedants will appreciate the avoidance of a terminal preposition.

But they will be less appreciative of the intrusive comma after "others".

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, the funding would all come from the same source on the basis that the national curriculum is taught in the school. If tretorn wants to establish schools to provide education which is founded upon their particular philosophy, they shouldn’t be excluded from applying for funding if they are willing to teach the national curriculum. Some schools don’t, and therefore receive no funding from the State.

So just to make sure I have you right, you would be perfectly happy with schools that racially discriminate?
Should we extend that to other state services, like hospitals and the gardai?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think anyone argued that it was? You argued that there should be a baseline, the national curriculum is that baseline, so whether a school is religious or secular is irrelevant. You asked earlier why does it matter what people want - I think you see now why it matters a lot what people want.

You argued it was, you said that there already is an equal baseline as everything teaches the same national curriculum. My point is there is not because religious schools alter the curriculum, and take time from the normal school day, for faith formation.
And I still don't see why it matters what people want.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can speak for yourself there Mark, on both counts. I fully support the establishment of secular schools for those parents that want a secular education for their children. That support in no way interferes with my support for religious education for those parents that want a religious education for their children.

I'm at loss for how this contradicts my claims that people are apathetic and the RCC can't and shouldn't teach kids?

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s a matter for the family though, not one that the State needs to be policing, IMO.

Is it one the state needs to subsidising either?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the State is not obliged to provide an education to the children of all it’s citizens. The State is obligated to provide for the education of all it’s citizens, and it would be the education providers are discriminatory if they were being discriminatory.

If you read your linked document, you'll note the following.

ihrec wrote:

the State bears the responsibility for the education of children, and consequently bears an obligation to respect the human rights of the recipients of education and those of their parents, be they of religious or non-religious beliefs.

More simply, the state may not duck out of its human rights obligations in the provision for education by acting through a proxy. As such your point is moot.

They have to be discriminatory in some respect simply because of the limits of their infrastructure means they can only cater to so many children. Nobody is funding discrimination either btw, the State is funding education, and education providers who discriminate provide choices for parents. It’d be great if there were more education providers providing more choices in education and we’ve seen in the last couple of years in this country at least that there are education providers willing to provide alternative models of education besides Catholic or ET models of education.

Again, if you re-read your linked document, you'll note that in meeting its obligation to provide for education, the state is not allow indoctrinate or proselytize.

ihrec wrote:

"In particular, the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not prevent States from imparting through teaching or education information or knowledge of a directly or indirectly religious or philosophical kind. It does not even permit parents to object to the integration of such teaching or education in the school curriculum.

However, as its aim is to safeguard the possibility of pluralism in education, it requires the State, in exercising its functions with regard to education and teaching, to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralist manner, enabling pupils to develop a critical mind particularly with regard to religion in a calm atmosphere free of any proselytism. The State is forbidden to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents' religious and philosophical convictions. That is the limit that the States must not exceed."

Religious ethos schools clearly fall foul of this in that provision of religious instruction is the default option and it has been shown repeatedly that it can be difficult to opt out of. Religion is not taught in a critical and pluralist manner. Furthermore, the schools regularly include other non-passive forms of religious observance. And yes, the taxpayer is funding the state who in turn funds the religious orders to run the school, which is funding discrimination. It doesn't stop being discrimination through one level of indirection.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they will be less appreciative of the intrusive comma after "others".

Commas are used not only to punctuate sentences according to syntax but also - as used above - to mark the briefest of clarifying pauses in speech.

All the same, thank you for noticing this and taking the time to point it out

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Commas are used not only to punctuate sentences according to syntax but also - as used above - to mark the briefest of clarifying pauses in speech.

Not while I still draw breath, they aren't!

robindch wrote: »

All the same, thank you for noticing this and taking the time to point it out

No additional charge is made for pedantry.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Commas are used not only to punctuate sentences according to syntax but also - as used above - to mark the briefest of clarifying pauses in speech.

Not while I still draw breath, they aren't!

I doff my hat to you, sir, for the your elegant and perspicacious example which captures, not one, but both usages

recedite

On the subject of Filipinos, a new discovery of bones belonging to relatives of the Flores Straits hobbits has been uncovered. Not surprisingly, they were very tiny people.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I doff my hat to you, sir, for the your elegant and perspicacious example which captures, not one, but both usages

Think I'll quit while I'm winning.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Think I'll quit while I'm winning.

I think I'll quit while I'm winning.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think I'll quit while I'm winning.

Dips his toes into clearly shark infested water. Warily. Clear water. Sharks with clearer minds than himself. Those commas have teeth. Would the winning make that last point raised a win? Would that win make that win a gerund? Not sure. Makes mental note, things to be googled. Wait, is that a gerund or a gerundive? Still not sure. Backs slowly away from the keyboard in search of a beer pondering verbal nouns, adjectival verbs and verbal adjectives. Think I might get totally Strunk and White tonight....

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You miss the point. Which is that faith formation is inflicted on children in the Irish education system against the wishes of parents, in violation of both our Constitution and the human rights of the parents.

Apologies for the delay in responding to this, was hospitalised on the Thursday night with an as yet undetermined infection which was causing this to happen, made it awkward to reply :pac:

But no, I’m not missing Odhinn’s point and I’m not missing your point. Odhinn’s point I suppose was that it’s a bit pointless to teach children religion and faith formation in schools when they aren’t given the foundations of it in the family home. It’s a fair point, but that still doesn’t take from the fact that it’s still a matter for the family and the parents of that child, or those children. It’s not a matter for the State (unless the child is in the care of the State or the care of a foster family, and I am aware of complaints that have been made against foster families in Ireland who did not respect the child’s religion), and it’s certainly not a matter for ordinary members of the public.

I’m not missing your point either, which is a totally different point to Odhinn’s point as the parents Odhinn and I were referring to, want faith formation for their children in accordance with their beliefs and world views, a right which is protected by the Irish Constitution and International Human Rights Law.

Your point is also a fair one in that it is wrong that successive Governments have sat on their hands on this issue and left it to the DOE to say that no new schools would be opened in areas where there were enough school places for all children. They’re not forcing you to enrol your children in a school which is inconsistent with your world view, because that would be unconstitutional. They’re instead trying the more pragmatic “forced integration” approach, which clearly, isn’t suiting anyone, because effectively you’re being left with no choice but to enrol your children in a school which you didn’t want for them - not good for you, not good for them. I actually do get it.

What I don’t get, is why you think you should be able to turn that around on everyone else who doesn’t want it, just to suit your own world view, and then use the same forced integration methods the DOE is using, but somehow yours is better for everyone else’s children than the DOE attempt is for yours? It’s only better in your eyes because now you’ve got your own way!

We need more diversity in Irish education if the argument is that we truly need to reflect a diverse society, rather than substituting one one-size-fits-all model for what is essentially just another one-size-fits-all model.

Hotblack Desiato

What exactly is objectionable about a secular education during the school day, with optional religious instruction after it for those who want it?

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What exactly is objectionable about a secular education during the school day, with optional religious instruction after it for those who want it?

Forcing religion down the throats of the wee ones is no doubt considered the final hope for the Catholic church to hang onto that last vestige of power in this godforsaken land. Can't be having that.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What exactly is objectionable about a secular education during the school day, with optional religious instruction after it for those who want it?

Absolutely nothing, for those parents who want that form of education for their children.

For those parents who don’t want that form of education for their children, they currently have that choice too.

Mark Hamill

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What exactly is objectionable about a secular education during the school day, with optional religious instruction after it for those who want it?

From parents? The effort required from those who supposedly believe in that religion.

Mark Hamill

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Absolutely nothing, for those parents who want that form of education for their children.

For those parents who don’t want that form of education for their children, they currently have that choice too.

Wouldn't post school faith formation take the same form as during school faith formation?

Also, just to remind you of my last response to you.