School patronage

expectationlost

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/call-for-longer-term-view-of-staffing-in-small-schools-284989.html that tallaght school doesn't even have a building yet

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Call me skeptical, but somehow I don't think that was their proposal?

Ah, Absolam. Where would we be without you, the one-person Paraphrase and Hyperbole Garda Unit. (In much shorter and to-the-point threads, I suspect is the short answer.)

I'd say the comparison is fairly flattering, in that shamanism (or animism more broadly) has a much stronger phenomenological basis as a system of spirituality than this more run-of-the-mill liturgical nonsense. And other than that... splitting connotations much?

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

If a school is to be non/multi denominational, removing elements offensive to some can't be enough, we must rid ourselves of all of offensive elements?

There's your problem. </Mythbusters> The rest of it, like most Onion articles, was just a needlessly extended riff on the same premise -- a clearly faulty one, in this case. Or as you yourself might say when doing your usual bit, "making stuff up".

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

It says that the new schools established recently have been "all multi-denominational or non-denominational". They probably mean ET by this, but in fact there is no non-denominational patron as yet.

You say "yet", but don't the current "Rules" preclude non-denom, in any stronger sense than at present? In fact, isn't ET, while self-describing as multi- as "non-" as it's possible to get within the bounds of said Rules?

Having said that, I don't think the Rules have so much standing as even a ministerial order, much less any obstacle that would require primary legislation -- much less constitutional change. So, what's keeping us? Oh yeah. Lack of any political will, and massive feet-dragging and obstructionism by the denominations in question. Silly me.

These type of schools can claim to be both "catholic" and "multi-denominational" which makes them quite appealing to many. The reason for this is they don't allow religious discrimination in their admissions policy (which to be fair to them is a big improvement on the traditional "denominational" school)

Couldn't this be said to be in a sense a return to the situation prior to the latest version of said Rules? ('60s or '70s, IIRC.) Before that point, the choices weren't "multi- or (uni-)denominational, but not "non-", they were simply "multi-denominational" (and if you're a monolithic all-Catholic or all-CoI school, pay lip service to this idea somehow).

As to second-guessing their motivations for this move, I think I'll largely pass. (Those school were just resting in our off-the-books account?)

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, Absolam. Where would we be without you, the one-person Paraphrase and Hyperbole Garda Unit. (In much shorter and to-the-point threads, I suspect is the short answer.)

You're right, we'd all be much better off if only the theists got picked up on their inaccuracies :-)

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'd say the comparison is fairly flattering, in that shamanism (or animism more broadly) has a much stronger phenomenological basis as a system of spirituality than this more run-of-the-mill liturgical nonsense. And other than that... splitting connotations much?

Can't say I noticed a comparison, flattering or otherwise...

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's your problem. </Mythbusters>

Hmm. It's a myth that we should accommodate all points of view rather than only accommodating an atheist point of view when it comes to removing offensive elements from schools?

alaimacerc wrote: »

The rest of it, like most Onion articles, was just a needlessly extended riff on the same premise -- a clearly faulty one, in this case. Or as you yourself might say when doing your usual bit, "making stuff up".

Not sure what it you're referring too, but I thought the article was an Irish Times one, not an Onion one?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sensing some antagonism towards ETB here, but I have to wonder, how bad can they be if you have to resort to making stuff up in order to have a go at them?

It has always been in the VEC/ETB proposal for their vision of new primary schools that religious instruction would be imposed on/provided to pupils in different groups segregated according to religion.

If you don't believe me, read their document on "patronage and pluralism"

If foreigners are present in the school, the following applies;

2.2.2.1 wrote:

...provide denominational religious education to all students in separate belief groups and grant parity of esteem to all belief systems and cultures.

If no foreigners, the default patronage position is "Catholic/Irish"

1.3.3. wrote:

When it comes to the celebration of feasts in schools, we celebrate Catholic/Irish feasts. To cater to diversity multi belief schools should celebrate the principal feasts of all groups in the school and display icons relevant to all belief groups in the school.
Celebrations at the beginning and end of school years should include religious leaders from all belief systems represented in the school.

As we all know, if the State was to provide direct education through setting up its own schools, the schools would have to pander to all religions equally, or else pander to none. Secularists think the the State should pander to none.
VEC/ETB thinks it can pander to all, by segregating the pupils during religious instruction classes;

1.1.3. wrote:

Parental choice is not necessarily about choosing between denominational and non-denominational patronage. A State patronage, through an agent such as a VEC, can deliver primary education that meets the needs of all families. This would not require families to choose between denominational and non denominational education and avoid unnecessary division in communities.

In the VEC/ETB vision, there is absolutely no problem with religious indoctrination in State schools, or with religious chaplains being brought into the schools and paid for by the State;

1.1.13. wrote:

The school would provide ‘faith formation’ for children of all beliefs within the curriculum. While challenging, given the work already underway in community national schools, this challenge can be met. This work should be undertaken by appropriately trained personnel. For minority religions, it should be possible to support this work using web-based technology

In the interests of equality, atheists and agnostics would be taught some decent "morality" in their own special group;

1.1.14. wrote:

Students from families with no particular religious affiliation would be provided with a module on moral development when other students are participating in denominational religious education.

BTW it is worth noting that ETB (formerly Vocation Educational Committee) is not "The State". They are a group of people appointed by, or connected to the county councils in some way. The exact mechanics of it I am not sure about, but they are not directly elected by the citizens in the same way TDs and county councillors are.
In general the VEC secondary schools seem to work quite well, which is largely down to the fact that the school principal of each school is pretty much in charge of their own school.
I don't think much of the overall committee though, or their current vision for multi-segregation in primary schools. Its not to my taste at all.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

It has always been in the VEC/ETB proposal for their vision of new primary schools that religious instruction would be imposed on/provided to pupils in different groups segregated according to religion.

Surely the document doesn't say imposed on, does it? I know it sounds much more authoritarian and aggressive than 'permitted' for instance, but I don't think they're actually saying they're going to impose religious instruction?
In fact what they do say is "all students should have their belief system respected and supported by the schools they attend", which would seem to be diametrically opposed to imposing religious instruction?

recedite wrote: »

If foreigners are present in the school, the following applies;"Originally Posted by 2.2.2.1 ...provide denominational religious education to all students in separate belief groups and grant parity of esteem to all belief systems and cultures."

I think your quote lacks context? The full relevant text is
"Where changes of patronage are to be advanced, what practicalities need to be considered?
What, if any, are the implications for:
Parental choice
Parents would no longer feel pressurised to choose between different schools because the needs of all families would be met under the one roof. It is appreciated that, in the first instance, it would only be the State school that would give children from all families an equal chance of enrolment, provide denominational religious education to all students in separate belief groups and grant parity of esteem to all belief systems and cultures."
I'm not sure why you think the answer only applies if foreigners are present in the school, it doesn't read that way to me? It reads as if they would provide denominational religious instruction according to the belief groups present with a parity of esteem. Which doesn't sound so bad?

recedite wrote: »

If no foreigners, the default patronage position is "Catholic/Irish"
Originally Posted by 1.3.3.
When it comes to the celebration of feasts in schools, we celebrate Catholic/Irish feasts. To cater to diversity multi belief schools should celebrate the principal feasts of all groups in the school and display icons relevant to all belief groups in the school.
Celebrations at the beginning and end of school years should include religious leaders from all belief systems represented in the school.

You probably should have included the question this was an answer to, which sets the context:
1.3 How might competing demands for diversity be considered and accommodated?
1.3.3 When it comes to the celebration of feasts in schools, we celebrate Catholic/Irish feasts. To cater to diversity, multi-belief schools should celebrate the principal feasts of all groups in the school and display icons relevant to all belief groups in the school.
Firstly, it doesn't follow on from your point about when foreigners are present in schools (which is actually about parental choice), since it precedes that point in the paper, so it's not what happens if no foreigners are present in the school.
Secondly, in context they are clearly (to me anyway?) stating what does happen in schools (celebrating Catholic/Irish feasts), and what should happen when a school's patronage is divested to the ETB (multiple faith feasts should be celebrated).

recedite wrote: »

As we all know, if the State was to provide direct education through setting up its own schools, the schools would have to pander to all religions equally, or else pander to none. Secularists think the the State should pander to none.

I honestly don't think we all 'know' that schools would have to pander to all religions equally. I think some secularists would agree the state must accommodate all religions equally, but I don't believe the state is under an obligation to 'pander' to religions. Maybe a semantic difference, but since the word is obviously prejudicial it ought to be pointed out.

recedite wrote: »

VEC/ETB thinks it can pander to all, by segregating the pupils during religious instruction classes;

I don't see any reason it shouldn't try to cater to all, if that's what parents want. I personally don't feel that school is an appropriate place for instruction in religion, but I suspect I am in a minority in that regard.
Again, a fuller picture of their statement might be had by including the preceding point:
1.1.12 In consulting with parents about what a State managed school would offer to parents, the following should be highlighted.
The school would provide ethical and non-denominational religious education to all students within the curriculum in standard class groups – irrespective of
their families’ belief system. This would require a ‘de-denominalisation’ of the religious education programme, given the integrated curriculum.

recedite wrote: »

In the VEC/ETB vision, there is absolutely no problem with religious indoctrination in State schools, or with religious chaplains being brought into the schools and paid for by the State;

Well, firstly, they haven't said a word about indoctrination, never mind whether they have a problem with it. Whilst it may suit you to call instruction in religion indoctrination (it is again nicely pejorative), to pillory the ETB for not even knowing you use the term, and failing to have a problem with facilitating what you portray as indoctrination, is rather unfair.

recedite wrote: »

I don't think much of the overall committee though, or their current vision for multi-segregation in primary schools. Its not to my taste at all.

That's fair enough; not every patron, or even the patronage system, is going to suit everyone. But claiming their proposal is to provide religious indoctrination by segregating pupils according to their religions, and brainwashing them separately as specified by the relevant shamanic authorities is a rather unpleasant misrepresentation; they haven't proposed indoctrination, segregation (again, in the pejorative sense), brainwashing, or consultation of shamanic authorities.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

..they haven't proposed indoctrination, segregation (again, in the pejorative sense), brainwashing, or consultation of shamanic authorities.

I think if you read again the quotes I selected, you will find that they have proposed all those things.

IMO religious instruction = religious indoctrination = a mild form of brainwashing. Not to be confused with Religious Education, the school subject. If you don't agree with this, then take out the term "brainwashing" but that makes little or no difference to the discussion.


You accused me of "making stuff up" and when I selected quotes to back up the specific points I made, you accused me of quoting selectively. Of course I am not going to quote their entire document; that would be lazy and pointless.

I find it laughably ironic that they claim to be the only patron which accommodates all pupils whatever their ethos, yet they have only managed to enroll one solitary pupil.

This is what happens when delusions collide with reality.

The reality is that those parents who prefer "a catholic education" or "a protestant education" will go elsewhere, and those who prefer a secular education will also go elsewhere. Those who aren't too bothered and just happen to live next door to the school are most likely to attend.

What a waste of public money.

expectationlost

First catholic secondary school in 30 years opens http://www.catholicireland.net/catholic-secondary-school-30-years-opens/

longer article on the school

Roughly 10% of the students in the new school have Irish parents while the other 90% would have parents who have immigrated into Ireland.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

First catholic secondary school in 30 years opens http://www.catholicireland.net/catholic-secondary-school-30-years-opens/

There is a bizarre contradiction in this. People who are not catholics are alleged to have "voted for" this catholic school.

Two patrons actively canvassed parents to support their bid for patronage of the new school, Le Chéile and Educate Together. However, local parents predominantly favoured Le Chéile.

Principal Aine Moran explained that Educate Together have a primary school in Tyrrelstown while there are three catholic primary schools in the catchment area in Ladyswell, St Patrick’s and St Luke’s.
Roughly 10% of the students in the new school have Irish parents while the other 90% would have parents who have immigrated into Ireland.

She said the school’s enrolment policy is not be based on religious affiliation as Le Chéile welcomes students from all faith traditions and none but on catchment area.


“We are open to everybody; that is very much what catholic education is about – being open to everybody and learning from one another. We have Muslims students, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Christians and a small percentage of Catholic students. Most of our Irish students would describe themselves as nominally catholic – church attendance in the area is low.”

Could it be that when the opinion poll was taken, the majority of local (Irish born) parents voted for a RC school to be set up, but when the time came to enroll their kids, they sent them to the three existing and well established denominational schools.....leaving the new school to the immigrant kids ??
So the minority group who more than likely did not vote for this catholic patronage at all, get to receive a catholic education.

Effectively then, this is like one of those missionary schools they used to set up in Africa, except that its based in Ireland. The immigrants can't mix with the catholics in the more established schools because those are denominational schools and they are allowed to practice religious discrimination and sibling preference in the admissions policy.

expectationlost

its usually the non-catholic mutli-d/vec schools that a perceived as the dumping ground and people are accused of picking catholics schools to avoid them, its very hard to know what going on on the ground.

expectationlost

new Education ministers briefing http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Ministers-Brief-/Ministers-Brief-2014.pdf

see if you can read it all, the IT noted that 75% of abuse compensation yet to be paid, gov trying to assert the moral responsibility as don't have or want to use legal measures

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/religious-orders-still-owe-75-of-redress-payments-for-abuse-1.1919582

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

the IT noted that 75% of abuse compensation yet to be paid, gov trying to assert the moral responsibility as don't have or want to use legal measures

Fcuk sake. When are they going to wake up? The RCC doesn't have morals. It understands two things, the compulsion of law and cold hard cash. The government are unable to collect the latter and unwilling to use the former.

What do the people of Ireland have to do to get justice? To force the authorities to do their duty? We are being stitched up yet again by the biggest vested interest in the country.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I think if you read again the quotes I selected, you will find that they have proposed all those things.

I don't think so. Honestly; the words 'indoctrination', 'segregation', 'brainwashing' and 'shaman' don't occur in the entire document, before you even reduce it to your quotes.

recedite wrote: »

IMO religious instruction = religious indoctrination = a mild form of brainwashing.

Which is fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But ETB haven't even given the slightest indication that they agree with your opinion, never mind put forward a proposal based on your opinion.

recedite wrote: »

You accused me of "making stuff up" and when I selected quotes to back up the specific points I made, you accused me of quoting selectively. Of course I am not going to quote their entire document; that would be lazy and pointless.

Firstly, nothing you quoted backed up your assertion that the ETB proposed to indoctrinate, segregate, or brainwash children, or to consult shamanic authorities.
Secondly, the way you quoted their document gave the impression they were saying something they actually weren't saying, even though that still didn't rise to the level of what you said they were proposing.
Thirdly, you added commentary to the effect that certain portions were to be applied to foreigners, and that preceding portions followed with portions to be applied to non-foreigners, without any foundation.
You don't think it's at all disingenuous to deliberately give the impression they're espousing something you can tell from your own reading that they aren't?

recedite wrote: »

I find it laughably ironic that they claim to be the only patron which accommodates all pupils whatever their ethos, yet they have only managed to enroll one solitary pupil.

How ironic is then that you're claiming they have only managed to enrol one solitary pupil, yet they are currently patrons of 34 schools, and joint patrons of 17 more, in Dublin and Dun Laoghaire alone? Just in terms of primary education, they have 9 community national schools.
So... a few more than one pupil?

recedite wrote: »

This is what happens when delusions collide with reality.

I suppose so.

recedite wrote: »

The reality is that those parents who prefer "a catholic education" or "a protestant education" will go elsewhere, and those who prefer a secular education will also go elsewhere. Those who aren't too bothered and just happen to live next door to the school are most likely to attend.

So you're saying it's only parents who aren't too bothered and happen to live next door (I'd love to see the research on that) that are sending their children to their 51 schools? Well, I suppose that means there's enough of those parents that they need to be accommodated then.

recedite wrote: »

What a waste of public money.

There seems to be a reasonable number of parents who would disagree?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Could it be that when the opinion poll was taken, the majority of local (Irish born) parents voted for a RC school to be set up, but when the time came to enroll their kids, they sent them to the three existing and well established denominational schools.....leaving the new school to the immigrant kids ??

Could it be that the immigrant communities were already well established in the area and had a pre-conceived perception of catholic education institutions as being at the top end of education options? In countries other than Ireland catholic schools are often preferred options for more affluent individuals.

recedite wrote: »

So the minority group who more than likely did not vote for this catholic patronage at all, get to receive a catholic education.

Or, the people who were looking for a catholic education voted for it and got it?

recedite wrote: »

Effectively then, this is like one of those missionary schools they used to set up in Africa, except that its based in Ireland.

You mean where people get an education when they otherwise wouldn't have?

recedite wrote: »

The immigrants can't mix with the catholics in the more established schools because those are denominational schools and they are allowed to practice religious discrimination and sibling preference in the admissions policy.

Isn't this also a denominational school? Isn't that what the article is about, that it's a new Catholic school?
Is there a reason you think it operates differently from the other demoninational schools?
Actually, do you know for a fact that the immigrants can't mix with the (presumably non-immigrant) catholics in the more established schools? Or are you speculating?

recedite

LE CHEILE TRUST SCHOOL

Absolam wrote: »

Could it be that the immigrant communities were already well established in the area and had a pre-conceived perception of catholic education institutions as being at the top end of education options? In countries other than Ireland catholic schools are often preferred options for more affluent individuals.
Or, the people who were looking for a catholic education voted for it and got it?

All that is possible. Applying the principle of Occam's Razor however, it is unlikely. The principal of the school says that only a small minority of pupils are catholic. The Department of Education says that the ethos of the school was chosen as a result of parental choice. Something about it smells very fishy.
I don't know how they counted the votes, or how they took into account the fact that a lot of the voters probably had the names of their kids already down for the existing denominational schools from birth, and had no intention of using the new school.

Absolam wrote: »

Isn't this also a denominational school? Isn't that what the article is about, that it's a new Catholic school?
Is there a reason you think it operates differently from the other demoninational schools?
Actually, do you know for a fact that the immigrants can't mix with the (presumably non-immigrant) catholics in the more established schools? Or

are you speculating?

No, its not a denominational school; its a catholic multi-denominational school. See this post for a clarification. It does not put non-catholics/immigrants to the back of the waiting list as a denominational school might. Which is why they all end up there.


ETB/VEC SCHOOL

Re the "solitary pupil" I was referring to the particular new ETB school that was being discussed a few posts ago. In this particular area (Tallaght) there was a good choice of several different primary schools in the area.
If a particular type of school can only attract pupils in areas where there are no other school places available in the local area, it does not say much for that type of school.

Re the "Shaman" thing. You are getting a bit hung up on this one word. Have you something against Shamans? Are they less valid than any other religious authority a religious person might choose to obey?
ETB have said that they are willing to impose the indoctrination as specified by the relevant religious authorities, during school hours. They will segregate the pupils during this process, according to what religions are present in the school (actually the parent's religion, to be precise)
Whether these "religious authority" people want to call themselves shamans, druids, priests, rabbis, mullahs, imams, ministers, vicars... its all the same to me. They are all at the same game.

RainyDay

recedite wrote: »

LE CHEILE TRUST SCHOOL

All that is possible. Applying the principle of Occam's Razor however, it is unlikely. The principal of the school says that only a small minority of pupils are catholic. The Department of Education says that the ethos of the school was chosen as a result of parental choice. Something about it smells very fishy.
I don't know how they counted the votes, or how they took into account the fact that a lot of the voters probably had the names of their kids already down for the existing denominational schools from birth, and had no intention of using the new school.

Is there any information on the number of parents who actually voted and participated in the consultation?

In other previous consultation events, the response rate from parents was very low - single figures if I recall correctly. So it was possible for a very small number of people to have undue influence on the outcome.

recedite

RainyDay wrote: »

Is there any information on the number of parents who actually voted and participated in the consultation?

I don't have that info. Its a good point though. I know in my local area there was a similar vote for a new secondary school. The local denominational schools were very pro-active in organising the lists and gathering signatures.
Those people who were not involved in a parish had less idea what was going on. The whole process was more like a petition than a vote. Only people who had kids of a specific age were supposed to participate, and they had to put the child's name and the year the child was due to start school on the petition.

SpaceTime

This will never be resolved because fundamentally most Irish people seem to equate education and religion where as in normal counties people are more likely to see those two things as separate.

You've so many vested interests piled up to ensure that secular education never happens here that it's impossible to even get a proper public debate going.

I think we can look forward to an increasingly divided education system with costs that keep spiraling up and up as nobody with political power is prepared to do anything about it because they're either too stupid too see that this is going to be a huge issue in years to come, they don't care or they are part of the vested interests themselves (many Irish politicians are primary and secondary teachers).

I've basically given up on it. The country's institutions show a total inability to reform and resistance to anything that makes them more democratically accountable.

Ireland's nice in some ways but in others it's completely dysfunctional and stuck in a deep rut.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

All that is possible. Applying the principle of Occam's Razor however, it is unlikely. The principal of the school says that only a small minority of pupils are catholic. The Department of Education says that the ethos of the school was chosen as a result of parental choice. Something about it smells very fishy. I don't know how they counted the votes, or how they took into account the fact that a lot of the voters probably had the names of their kids already down for the existing denominational schools from birth, and had no intention of using the new school.

So, given the paucity of evidence, one is about as likely as the other?

recedite wrote: »

No, its not a denominational school; its a catholic multi-denominational school. See this post for a clarification. It does not put non-catholics/immigrants to the back of the waiting list as a denominational school might. Which is why they all end up there.

So... it's a Catholic school. It belongs to, and is run by, the Catholic denomination.
It is conducted in accordance with the religious and educational philosophy of the trustees, who are Catholic religious congregations. But because it doesn't prefer Catholic students, it's not denominational? Interesting.

recedite wrote: »

Re the "solitary pupil" I was referring to the particular new ETB school that was being discussed a few posts ago.

And yet you didn't say "I find it laughably ironic that they claim to be the only patron which accommodates all pupils whatever their ethos, yet in one of the dozens of schools they operate they have only managed to enroll one solitary pupil". Adding the context again rather changes your post?

recedite wrote: »

Re the "Shaman" thing. You are getting a bit hung up on this one word. Have you something against Shamans? Are they less valid than any other religious authority a religious person might choose to obey?

Well, no more so than 'impose', 'indoctrinate', 'segregate' and 'brainwash'. I didn't actually single out 'shamanic' but since you mention it, what shamanic authorities do you think there are in Ireland that ETB resorts to for brainwashing specifications?

recedite wrote: »

ETB have said that they are willing to impose the indoctrination as specified by the relevant religious authorities, during school hours.

Ah but they haven't have they? Seriously, have they once used the word 'indoctrinate' in their literature? Have they said anywhere that they will 'impose' anything? Or do you really mean that what ETB have said amounts to this in your opinion? Because if it is your opinion, surely you can stand over it as such, rather than pretending that someone else actually said it?

recedite wrote: »

They will segregate the pupils during this process, according to what religions are present in the school (actually the parent's religion, to be precise)

Did they say they would segregate students? I think the only time they refer to segregation is when they say "Consultation should be about determining what diversity issues parents want schools to address rather than with a view to segregating students for their education."Which I have to say rather sounds like they disapprove of segregation?

recedite wrote: »

Whether these "religious authority" people want to call themselves shamans, druids, priests, rabbis, mullahs, imams, ministers, vicars... its all the same to me. They are all at the same game.

If it's all the same to you, why do you call them shamanic authorities when you know it's not what they call themselves?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Ah but they haven't have they? Seriously, have they once used the word 'indoctrinate' in their literature? Have they said anywhere that they will 'impose' anything?

The terms "faith formation" and "religious instruction" are normally preferred by those advocating these things, but they all have the same meaning.

Absolam wrote: »

Did they say they would segregate students?

They used the word "separate".
The word "segregate" does not necessarily refer to skin colour, although having said that I'm guessing the group containing muslims would have very few white faces.

2.2.2.1 wrote:

...provide denominational religious education to all students in separate belief groups and grant parity of esteem to all belief systems and cultures.

Re the word "impose", this is a subjective thing. From the point of view of the young child, "faith formation", if it is introduced into a school, is something that is imposed.

If some parent who claims to be a pagan, or a witch, or a satan-worshipper (and I'm not equating all these BTW) sends a child to the school, then the school will have to "impose" the relevant religious instruction on the child, as specified by the parent and their religious authority.
Unless the school can find some justification for reneging on their own rules. In which case they are no longer catering for all religions, but only the ones they approve of.
This is one of the reasons religion should be left outside the school gates.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The terms "faith formation" and "religious instruction" are normally preferred by those advocating these things, but they all have the same meaning.

Can you point to any dictionary or thesaurus that say 'indoctrination' means 'faith formation' or 'religious instruction'? Or do you mean according to you they mean the same thing, even if the people actually engaged in the activities of 'faith formation' or 'religious instruction' would state categorically that they are not engaged in 'indoctrination'?

recedite wrote: »

They used the word "separate". The word "segregate" does not necessarily refer to skin colour, although having said that I'm guessing the group containing muslims would have very few white faces.

Yes, they used the word "separate". They didn't use the word "segregate", they used the word "separate" when they said "It is appreciated that, in the first instance, it would only be the State school that would give children from all families an equal chance of enrolment, provide denominational religious education to all students in separate belief groups and grant parity of esteem to all belief systems and cultures."
Which is not really the same as proposing to segregate all the pupils according to their individual religions, is it?

recedite wrote: »

Re the word "impose", this is a subjective thing. From the point of view of the young child, "faith formation", if it is introduced into a school, is something that is imposed.

So you're assuming the faith formation would only be introduced in school? It's not something parents would have already engaged in at home? Seems a bit strange to wait until your child is going to school, and then deciding to ask the school to 'impose' a new belief system on them for you, don't you think?

recedite wrote: »

If some parent who claims to be a pagan, or a witch, or a satan-worshipper (and I'm not equating all these BTW) sends a child to the school, then the school will have to "impose" the relevant religious instruction on the child, as specified by the parent and their religious authority.

What exactly prevents them from providing faith formation, rather than imposing it?

recedite wrote: »

Unless the school can find some justification for reneging on their own rules. In which case they are no longer catering for all religions, but only the ones they approve of. This is one of the reasons religion should be left outside the school gates.

Which rules exactly require them to impose faith formation, rather than provide it?

Peregrinus

"Indoctrination" = "formation of beliefs which I do not share".

recedite

I'm not going to get into any more splitting hairs with regard to the use of certain words, but I'm happy to agree that all schools are involved in some form of "indoctrination" eg to indoctrinate "good behaviour" into pupils. To "form" or "mould" behaviours such as courtesy, sharing, thinking of others etc.
I think all parents are happy enough with this kind of indoctrination.
Its just the provision (imposition) of religious indoctrination I disagree with.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I'm not going to get into any more splitting hairs with regard to the use of certain words, but I'm happy to agree that all schools are involved in some form of "indoctrination" eg to indoctrinate "good behaviour" into pupils. To "form" or "mould" behaviours such as courtesy, sharing, thinking of others etc. I think all parents are happy enough with this kind of indoctrination. Its just the provision (imposition) of religious indoctrination I disagree with.

I'm happy to agree that religious indoctrination is generally a bad thing, but that religious instruction and faith formation aren't necessarily.
Also that providing something is a far cry from imposing it.

Cabaal

Finally our schools are joining the modern world where employer's can't sack people for being gay

http://www.thejournal.ie/laws-discrimination-changed-1662535-Sep2014/

It will soon be illegal to discriminate against gay teachers
Labour TD Aodhán Ó Ríordáin said he will be working on the amendment in the coming months.

This also means they can't sack teachers for:
- Sex outside of marriage
- Getting divorced
- Using condoms
- Getting pregnant outside of marriage

PopePalpatine

I expect a barrage of nastiness from a certain Mr Quinn.

expectationlost

Cabaal wrote: »

Finally our schools are joining the modern world where employer's can't sack people for being gay

http://www.thejournal.ie/laws-discrimination-changed-1662535-Sep2014/



This also means they can't sack teachers for:
- Sex outside of marriage
- Getting divorced
- Using condoms
- Getting pregnant outside of marriage

still not sure tis adressing the protection of atheist teachers though

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

till not sure tis adressing the protection of atheist teachers though

We’ll have to wait and see.

Ó Riordáin says he’s going to introduce a Bill to amend Employment Equality Act 1998 s. 37.

The relevant bit of s. 37 says:

A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person . . . if . . .

(a) it gives more favourable treatment, on the religion ground, to an employee or a prospective employee over that person where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution, or

(b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.

Ó Riordáin intends to amend this and not delete it completely. And that makes sense; it couldn’t be right to for the state to try to force, e.g., a synagogue hiring a rabbi to disregard the candidates’ theological or doctrinal views. There does need to be some carve-out for religious organisations.

Ó Riordáin’s statement quoted in the Examiner mentions the divorced, single parents, and LGBT workers, so presumably the amendment he contemplates will forbid at least some religious organisations from discriminating on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation. But we can’t assume that it will apply to all religious organisations - presumably Catholic dioceses and religious orders will still be allowed not to accept married men as priests. At a minimum we can expect the amendment to extend to schools, but it remains to be seen whether it will extend any further. And we can’t assume that, even within schools, the amendment will address discrimination on grounds other than marital status and sexual orientation. Cabaal is therefore wrong to say that the amendment will protect those who use condoms, but in the real world this may not matter so much; I don’t think anybody has been fired for using a condom.

There may be a trade-off here; the more the amendment is narrowly focussed on schools, the stronger the case for saying that the amendment should forbid discrimination on most or all of the grounds listed in the Act.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

it couldn’t be right to for the state to try to force, e.g., a synagogue hiring a rabbi to disregard the candidates’ theological or doctrinal views. There does need to be some carve-out for religious organisations.

In some previous cases involving clerical abuse, the RCC denied that there was an employer/employee relationship between individual priests and the church. So they can't have it both ways. Whether or not their view is legally correct, it could easily be written into legislation that a religious organisation does not discriminate when it selects candidates for ordination based on their gender or personal "ethos".

There is no need for this to impact on any "lay" jobs though. I don't agree that they need any opt-out of equality legislation for employees in secretarial, building maintenance, or teaching jobs. When the jobs are state funded that should go without saying, but even when they are paid out of church funds, an opt-out is still wrong.

Peregrinus wrote: »

At a minimum we can expect the amendment to extend to schools, but it remains to be seen whether it will extend any further. And we can’t assume that, even within schools, the amendment will address discrimination on grounds other than marital status and sexual orientation.

I would be very disappointed in the amendment if that were the case.

However being realistic, this is a Labour party guy, working apparently off his own bat, to try to make some difference. After he finishes his proposals they will be voted on in the Dail or Seanad, at which time they will also need Fine Gael support to succeed.
He is a former teacher, so he must have some insight into this. In general he seems a competent guy, so I'm hopeful he will come up with something worthwhile.