School patronage

expectationlost

Fleawuss wrote: »

I looked over this thread to see the same old points being put forward in favour of denominational patrons maintaining their position in Ireland into the future. If you are a believer in supernaturalism etc.etc. (to avoid retelling the weary nonsenses of religion) you want the status quo to continue. That is frequently hidden behind legal arguments or arguments couched in legalese, a denial of any rights based argument and a lengthy and verbose exposition of why things must remain the same.

Personally I want the state to be sole patron of schools in Ireland. The state should be neutral among the various competing gods and must ensure that the citizens of the state have access to reality based education not solely revelation based education. The problem is in computer terms, a legacy problem. Too much money was given by the infantile state here to religious organisations and they have ownership of property, much of which in recent decades they still own but its upkeep and construction and staffing are entirely state dependent.

But what can the state do?

it can decide it wants to have an education policy

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, it's addressing the specifics you raised. It's obviously easier to have a good moan if you ignore the facts, but at least someone is handing them to you, eh?
I do love to see people prepared to stand up for what they want and put the effort into making change happen.
Though I suppose you have to respect peoples choice to not get involved too.

In fairness, it isn't.

It's just an attempt to take a very narrow and somewhat questionable interpretation of the constitution (that has never been tested in court) and shoot down every argument I made.

Sure those Catholics in the 18th and 19th century who were forced to either go to protestant school university and convert or have no schooling at all were just having a "good moan" I suppose too?

Maybe they should have just sucked it up and become protestants, which was the state's preferred religion at the time.

Sure who needs annoying concepts like freedom of conscience in a democracy?

Brian Shanahan

Fleawuss wrote: »

But what can the state do? A draconian seizure of property is impossible. A political decision is impractical at the moment.

It's not all that draconian when a) the property was completely funded by the state, b) the property is de facto state land, and c) the organisation that owns the property is in hock to the state for €1.5bn plus in compensation money for decades of vicious and endemic child abuse within the organisation. In fact there are hundreds of ways that the state can enforce the disenfranchisement of the church from state schools which would only leave the bishops impotently fuming from the sidelines.

But then again this is the government which every time the troika kicks it simply rolls over and begs for more.

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[...] every time the troika kicks it simply rolls over [...]

I'm sure there are some A+A people who believe that debts should be repaid - perhaps time for an A+A thread on bailouts and related matters?

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

Once people see through attempts to indoctrinate them with religious mumbo jumbo they tend to be "inoculated" against supernaturalism. Not all see through it of course.

Sooo... we should up the level of indoctrination in schools in order to ensure effective inoculation? Interesting.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

In fairness, it isn't. It's just an attempt to take a very narrow and somewhat questionable interpretation of the constitution (that has never been tested in court) and shoot down every argument I made.

Ah now... I only referred to the Constitution twice in fifteen points! Nor can I see how pointing out that the State can provide educational facilities (The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.) or that education is the Constitutional responsibility of parents (The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.) is a narrow or questionable interpretation. If you think it is, I'm perfectly willing to listen to your argument why, if you're not too busy packing up to leave the country...

SpaceTime wrote: »

Sure those Catholics in the 18th and 19th century who were forced to either go to protestant school university and convert or have no schooling at all were just having a "good moan" I suppose too? Maybe they should have just sucked it up and become protestants, which was the state's preferred religion at the time.

Are we extending the discussions from schools to universities now? It's still reaching quite a bit if you have to go back to before 1793 to find an example to support the assertion that people have to convert in order to get into a university (if not a school). I don't think not going to university really counts as having 'no schooling at all' though.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Sure who needs annoying concepts like freedom of conscience in a democracy?

Right. Though, it probably should be pointed out it was a monarchy, not a democracy, at the time?

expectationlost

Education Together letter to the ED in IT in reply to Humphryes op ed http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/schools-and-religious-patronage-1.2302414 noted section 68 can't avoid “a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school”. written by AMY MULVIHILL,
New Schools
Programme Manager,
Educate Together

so slightly less Educate Together is the solution all the problems then Paul Rowe

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

Education Together letter to the ED in IT in reply to Humphryes op ed noted section 68 can't avoid “a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school”.
so slightly less Educate Together is the solution all the problems then Paul Rowe

I wonder how Ms Mulvihill would explain the means by which Educate Together ensures a religious spirit informs and vivifies the whole work of the school. It would be very interesting to see what action they take in order to feel they're compliant with the rule.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Sooo... we should up the level of indoctrination in schools in order to ensure effective inoculation? Interesting.

An excellent example of a non sequitur.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

I wonder how Ms Mulvihill would explain the means by which Educate Together ensures a religious spirit informs and vivifies the whole work of the school. It would be very interesting to see what action they take in order to feel they're compliant with the rule.

She could simply ask any RC school for the methods by which they do so and use them. For each denomination in the school of course. But so they all get along. There are topics to avoid of course.

Fleawuss

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It's not all that draconian when a) the property was completely funded by the state, b) the property is de facto state land, and c) the organisation that owns the property is in hock to the state for €1.5bn plus in compensation money for decades of vicious and endemic child abuse within the organisation. In fact there are hundreds of ways that the state can enforce the disenfranchisement of the church from state schools which would only leave the bishops impotently fuming from the sidelines.

But then again this is the government which every time the troika kicks it simply rolls over and begs for more.

I agree with you that there is a moral case there but I don't expect that to hold any water with the RCC given their track record there. I don't think there is a de facto claim on religious owned property and I doubt if there is a de jure one either. The problem being funding is provided without any legally binding claims to title. The very Irish approach is that a lot of this is or has been unspoken understandings between politicians, senior civil servants and religious leaders be they imams, bishops or elders etc. is there a political way forward? If money is owed then possibly but the RCC for example has a lot of old empty buildings eg convents novitiates etc that are not schools and it would be an easy out if they could hand over derelict real estate and saddle the State with upkeep or demolition or insurance issues.

The Churches are fighting a rear guard action and they know it. But they have clever legal advisers and they will defend their grip on children to the death. They know that it is their only hope to keep membership at levels above cult status.

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

I wonder how Ms Mulvihill would explain the means by which Educate Together ensures a religious spirit informs and vivifies the whole work of the school. It would be very interesting to see what action they take in order to feel they're compliant with the rule.

And would the department of education explain how this rule is constitutional?

Fleawuss

SpaceTime wrote: »

And would the department of education explain how this rule is constitutional?

It doesn't have to. You are barking up the wrong tree. Constitutional challenges must be made in the courts and are decided there.

I don't disagree with your aim of eliminating religious control of education but the 1937 constitution is a peculiar vehicle. It was written by devout RCs influenced by reactionary Archbishop McQuaid. Thankfully it has been amended repeatedly by the sovereign will of the people who have repeatedly rejected the "guidance" of supernaturalists and revelationists as to how they should order their lives.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I wonder how Ms Mulvihill would explain the means by which Educate Together ensures a religious spirit informs and vivifies the whole work of the school. It would be very interesting to see what action they take in order to feel they're compliant with the rule.

I don't speak for ET, but wouldn't it be great if somebody set up a new non-denominational type of school with a satirical religious ethos.

Religion class would consist of the most hilarious stories from religious books. Talking snakes and Noahs Ark. A wooden barge filled with a pair of all the predatory animals and all their prey hanging out on the deck together, plus all the freshwater fish in fish tanks. All the species from all the known world (so obviously no kangaroos or penguins mentioned). It could also be worked into a maths lesson. A burning bush with a voice. Jesus attacking a fig tree. And that Hare Krishna guy who lands on Earth in a giant egg.
That kind of religious spirit would certainly vivify the school day

Fleawuss

It would be great if a non religious body set up a patron body: no obligation to teach religion therefore all teachers spend all time on real lessons. Huge advantage. No cost of religion books. Advantage. No communion or confirmation costs. Advantage. Children focussed on learning to become real people with no hang ups about guilt or god or sex. Huge advantage.

recedite

But unfortunately a mandatory 30 minutes per day or 2.5 hours per week minimum are set aside for religious education in primary schools, as per the national curriculum. Because..

The National Curriculum wrote:

In seeking to develop the full potential of the individual, the curriculum takes into account the child’s affective, aesthetic, spiritual, moral and religious needs. The spiritual dimension is a fundamental aspect of individual experience, and its religious and cultural expression is an inextricable part of Irish culture and history. Religious education specifically enables the child to develop spiritual and moral values and to come to a knowledge of God.

But what specific religious ethos they teach with those hours is up to the school, so I don't see why a satirical religious education wouldn't be allowed.

A denominational school BTW would also have religious ideas, pictures, songs and stories permeating the whole school day, and on occasion, possibly preparation for sacraments of up to 8 hours per week.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure there are some A+A people who believe that debts should be repaid - perhaps time for an A+A thread on bailouts and related matters?

The state paying for banking bad debts is the same as me being forced to pay off your mortgage after you go bankrupt just because we interact over the internet, just with an extra few 0's added.

German, UK and US banks gambled when they bought junk bonds being issued by Irish banks in the height of the crisis, and when they bought junk CDOs* for a long time before that. It was they who should have taken the hit for their stupidity, not me and thee.

*Though they weren't being marketed as junk. Well done S&P, Moody's and Fitch, you did a bang up job in not being able to count past ten without having to remove you're socks.

Brian Shanahan

Fleawuss wrote: »

I agree with you that there is a moral case there but I don't expect that to hold any water with the RCC given their track record there.

I don't give two ****s what the Junta Pope and his cabal of parasites think. They've been ****ed out of countries before, and they can be ****ed out of countries again.

Hotblack Desiato

and to come to a knowledge of God.

Would a knowlege that god is a lie used to bilk money and obedience from the masses count as fulfilling the requirement :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

Ireland’s religious schools are putting us off coming home

SpaceTime

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ireland’s religious schools are putting us off coming home

It's also putting people off moving here who have necessary skills.

Irish school is a little weird from an international perspective. The religiosity, the uniforms etc are all rather shocking if you're not brought up with them and there are simply no alternatives in most areas and huge oversubscription to Educate Together.

Even the private schools are almost entirely religious too.

All the question marks around safety during pregnancy that were raised by the Savita Halappanavar case and other reported cases are also very offputting.

This one for example :

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-says-ireland-s-abortion-laws-put-her-life-in-danger-1.2242979

El Mundo (Spain) coverage:

http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2015/06/09/5576b53c22601d50338b4578.html

On a narrow range of issues, it's still the sort of the Catholic version of Iran or something.

Then you've also got the spectre of a healthcare system that is far below par with other wealthy countries in many respects, especially A&E. There's one endless stream of horror stories about the health system here.

Those three factors would certainly make me think twice about the place as a destination.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

An excellent example of a non sequitur.

Really? It certainly seems to follow. Let's see...

inocybe wrote: »

On the bright side there's nothing like having Catholicism shoved down your throat at school to inoculate you against religion.

Fleawuss wrote: »

Once people see through attempts to indoctrinate them with religious mumbo jumbo they tend to be "inoculated" against supernaturalism.

Yep, it sure seems logical that if the above is the case, the more Catholicism shoved down peoples throats the more inoculated they will be against religion.
We should make a plan!

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

She could simply ask any RC school for the methods by which they do so and use them. For each denomination in the school of course. But so they all get along. There are topics to avoid of course.

I think you misunderstand. Educate Together schools currently operate under the School Rules, which, as Ms Mulvihill says, include a requirement that "a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school".
She doesn't need to ask a RC school how they do so; her schools already do so. I'm wondering how. Most of us already know how RC schools do it

SpaceTime wrote: »

And would the department of education explain how this rule is constitutional?

Well, if someone took them to court for breaching their specific Constitutional right by having the rule they would have to. How do you think you would frame that case?

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Really? It certainly seems to follow. Let's see...


Yep, it sure seems logical that if the above is the case, the more Catholicism shoved down peoples throats the more inoculated they will be against religion.
We should make a plan!

They have to see through it though. It doesn't follow logically that if they are indoctrinated they will be automatically inoculated. Many never recover.

inocybe

Fleawuss wrote: »

They have to see through it though. It doesn't follow logically that if they are indoctrinated they will be automatically inoculated. Many never recover.

Many are left with a lifelong hatred of the particular religion forced on them. Many go on to have children and see history repeating itself with their schooling. its not an argument for more involuntary exposure to nonsense.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

They have to see through it though. It doesn't follow logically that if they are indoctrinated they will be automatically inoculated. Many never recover.

Sooo... "there's nothing like having Catholicism shoved down your throat at school to inoculate you against religion" isn't a true statement then. Fair enough.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Sooo... "there's nothing like having Catholicism shoved down your throat at school to inoculate you against religion" isn't a true statement then. Fair enough.

It may well be true for a particular individual that the experience of school religion put them off it for life particularly the compulsory element of that. It doesn't follow that we should make Catholicism a coercive compulsory experience for everyone so that everyone would turn against it.

recedite

An excellent example of a non sequitur.

Let me explain. Inoculation only works because it is a very small dose.
Increasing the dose does not make it work better. It causes the disease.
Hence the non sequitur when you suggested more was better.

Absolam wrote: »

Sooo... we should up the level of indoctrination in schools in order to ensure effective inoculation? Interesting.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Let me explain. Inoculation only works because it is a very small dose. Increasing the dose does not make it work better. It causes the disease. Hence the non sequitur when you suggested more was better.

Actually, inoculation works by introducing a lesser degree of infection, but either notion flies in the face of inocybes assertion

inocybe wrote: »

there's nothing like having Catholicism shoved down your throat at school to inoculate you against religion.

unless of course Catholicism is a 'very small dose', or attenuated strain, of religion. Though the shoving down the throat bit, whilst appearing to imply some sense of severity, might actually denote a carefully administered prophylactic dose, sure

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, inoculation works by introducing a lesser degree of infection, but either notion flies in the face of inocybes assertion

unless of course Catholicism is a 'very small dose', or attenuated strain, of religion. Though the shoving down the throat bit, whilst appearing to imply some sense of severity, might actually denote a carefully administered prophylactic dose, sure

If this annoying nitpicking is the best defense you can come up with for maintaining the status quo it's pretty pathetic. As is the smug 'this is just how it is' attitude. Why would you want people who hate your religion within catholic schools? Do you think that they will be turned?