School patronage

expectationlost

interesting IT letters http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/patronage-system-and-education-1.2424443

replacing patrons is not going to work

lack of public meetings at time of survey

letter paddy monaghan noting ministers has ideas but is not going to do anything about it

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well that's the easily identifiable flag for the quality of the content of your posts at this stage isn't it?

True; I'm not easily inclined to slide into a pejorative position it must be said. I prefer to look at the facts without adding bias.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How does whether they are aware of my existence or not make the slightest difference to whether I am right?

Because if they're not aware of what you're sure of, their thinking won't be influenced by what you're sure of, will it? You haven't given any reason to think you're right, you've only said you're sure.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

My "guess" is based on the pretty much 100% likelihood of Muslims elsewhere preferring to set up Muslim schools. Your "reasonably good chance" is based on the fact that all available evidence don't suit your agenda.

Yes; your guess is based on a pretty much 100% made up statistic.
Whereas my 'reasonably good chance' is based on the fact that you're one of four and half million people in the Republic, and you've provided no reason for us to think that you're known to the Muslim community in Tralee, never mind that you're someone whose opinion on brainwashing children with fairytales they're likely to listen to. If you'd like to dispute any of those things, I'll happily revise my estimation of the probability though.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

True; I'm not easily inclined to slide into a pejorative position it must be said. I prefer to look at the facts without adding bias.

Because if they're not aware of what you're sure of, they're thinking won't be influenced by what you're sure of, is it? You haven't given any reason to think you're right, you've only said you're sure.
Yes; your guess is based on a pretty much 100% made up statistic.
Whereas my 'reasonably good chance' is based on the fact that you're one of four and half million people in the Republic, and you've provided no reason for us to think that you're known to the Muslim community in Tralee, never mind that you're someone whose opinion on brainwashing children with fairytales they're likely to listen to. If you'd like to dispute any of those things, I'll happily revise my estimation of the probability though.

I've never heard such utter blather since... your last post.
Once more, why are you insisting people have to know me or my opinion on something in order for my opinion to be valid or correct? If you think people's opinions only count when the people they're talking about know who they are, then do you mind telling us what your last 1000 posts are about?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Do you have a reason for targeting 5 year olds and discriminating against them just because their parents decided that they shouldn't be brain washed into the catholic faith?

I don't... but I don't think quid pro quo on idealogical enforecement, even imaginary quid pro, in providing education is a great idea, do you? Just because you think someone was picking on you isn't really a good reason for a grown up to want to pick on someone.

Cabaal wrote: »

Do you have a reason why you are ok with the current setup that uses 10% of primary school time on catholic faith formation. The same amount of time that is spend on far more important subjects like maths or english.

Did we not get over this a while ago?
Mathematics: 4 hours & 10 minutes of 28 hour week (14.8%)
English: 5 hours of of 28 hour week (17.8%)
Religious Education: 2 hours & 30 minutes of 28 hour week. (8.9%)
To be spend on Religious Education, not necessarily catholic faith formation, it must be said. And yes, I'm ok with the idea that children should be educated about religion, and that their parents can choose to have then educated in their religion too, if they want.

Cabaal wrote: »

Being ok with discrimination of children using tax payer money is frankly seriously worrying but then its is nothing new for many followers of the catholic church. It explains alot about its dark and disgusting history where pretty much anything can be justified when it comes to vulnerable groups.

Yet that's just what Recedite was proposing; discrimination of children using tax payer money. And he's not even a fan of the catholic church, never mind a follower. And lets be honest, the catholic church isn't exactly alone when it comes to justifying doing disgusting things to vulnerable groups. In fact, it's not even exclusive to religions. I guess atheists can be as nasty as anyone else when it comes down it, they just can't blame a higher power for what they do.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Firstly I'm assuming CC means "catholic church" here (as if there was only one religion describing itself as "catholic").
OK you are correct, it works both ways; which proves my point that they consider "a RC ethos" to be interchangeable with "no particular religious ethos". These are considered to be the one default "normal" position.

Good assumption; there's only one religion that calls itself the Catholic Church. But your point wasn't that they consider "a RC ethos" to be interchangeable with "no particular religious ethos", it was that Bus Eireann has just sent this note to all parents whose kids use the state subsidised school bus system, reminding them that they are all catholics by default. Which simply isn't the case, particularly since the system you described works equally in favour of an ET school as it does a CC school.

recedite wrote: »

The policy does not take into account the fact that an ET school is acceptable to all, including the various Christian denominations, as there is no particular religious indoctrination going on. But the reverse is not true, in that both types of denominational schools will try to push their own particular religious agenda.

Whether an ET is acceptable to all is really a matter of opinion for parents I'd say, but anyway, the policy doesn't take into account anything about which ethos is acceptable to anyone, never mind which practice indoctrination. It's ethos agnostic, but you're asking for it to favour your preferences instead.....

recedite wrote: »

If a CoI school was at 5km and a RC school was at 7km, Bus Eireann would provides seats to bypass the CoI school and take the RC/atheist/agnostic/hindu/whatever kids to the further school. So there are very different policies towards the two types of denominational school. Whereas RC and ET are treated as being of the same ethos.

No; Protestant schools are treated as being a minority religion, per the guidelines; "In relation to school transport provision, ethos relates to religious ethos and is in the context of provision for minority religions." Now I don't think ET schools are representative of a minority religion, but I would say that there's a case to be made for pupils of a minority irreligion perspective being treated similarly to those of a minority religion (and such a provision certainly doesn't appear to be prohibited by the current rules). I suspect it will be up to the parents (or their elected representatives) to do that though.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Yet that's just what Recedite was proposing; discrimination of children using tax payer money. And he's not even a fan of the catholic church, never mind a follower. And lets be honest, the catholic church isn't exactly alone when it comes to justifying doing disgusting things to vulnerable groups. In fact, it's not even exclusive to religions. I guess atheists can be as nasty as anyone else when it comes down it, they just can't blame a higher power for what they do.

Whatabout the whataboutery there folks?
"No worse than any other disgusting organisation" is an interesting promotional tactic.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

... what Recedite was proposing; discrimination of children using tax payer money. And he's not even a fan of the catholic church, never mind a follower..

No, this is what I said (which is pretty much the opposite)

recedite wrote: »

In a sane society, school transport would be made available to your nearest school of a neutral ethos (either secular or multi-denominational, and with a completely non-discriminatory admissions policy)
Those wanting to attend denominational schools, private schools or schools with a specified narrow "ethos" would be the ones making the special private transport arrangements for their kids.

Absolam wrote: »

Good assumption; there's only one religion that calls itself the Catholic Church.

Not quite, but there is only one RCC. In China the State appoints bishops to the catholic church, which policy is not approved by Rome; so the CC is not the RCC over there. And in Ireland, Anglicans recite the Apostles Creed as follows;

..I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

So its best to be specific; "the CC" as a phrase, has no objective meaning.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've never heard such utter blather since... your last post.

Then it's very kind of you to take the time to address it all the same.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Once more, why are you insisting people have to know me or my opinion on something in order for my opinion to be valid or correct? If you think people's opinions only count when the people they're talking about know who they are, then do you mind telling us what your last 1000 posts are about?

I think you missed what I said so. Perhaps you mistook it for blather. If you recall, I said "what you're sure of doesn't really make any difference at all to that particular mosque, does it?" Whether you're right or not doesn't make any difference to them either.

The fact that you are sure they're exactly as interested in brainwashing children with fairytales as any other theist group tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the mosque do or do not actually want to build or run a national school, which was the point you replied to, remember? Unless your opinion is informing their decisions, which seems unlikely, for the reasons I pointed out.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Whatabout the whataboutery there folks?
"No worse than any other disgusting organisation" is an interesting promotional tactic.

Gosh aren't I glad I didn't say that, eh folks?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

No, this is what I said (which is pretty much the opposite)

Indeed you said "Those wanting to attend denominational schools, private schools or schools with a specified narrow "ethos" would be the ones making the special private transport arrangements for their kids". So you've deliberately singled out those to be discriminated against using tax pay money. Have you not?

recedite wrote: »

Not quite, but there is only one RCC. In China the State appoints bishops to the catholic church, which policy is not approved by Rome; so the CC is not the RCC over there. And in Ireland, Anglicans recite the Apostles Creed as follows;So its best to be specific; "the CC" as a phrase, has no objective meaning.

I am being specific; the Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church. Regardless of whether you think it has no objective meaning.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Unless your opinion is informing their decisions, which seems unlikely, for the reasons I pointed out.

Nope, that's exactly the same non-point but *now with 200% extra word count FREE!*
The RCC don't listen to what anybody says either, so we shouldn't bother our little heads having an opinion on them either, huh.

expectationlost

Atheist Ireland highlighting Diversity of schools under diff patrons, not feasible to pursue such a policy, Dept of Ed

The Report noted that part of the response to greater diversity in the population was to provide a greater diversity of schools under different types of patronage. However, there is a recognition that the State cannot provide more schools than are required in a given geographical area, solely to meet the demand for different types of patronage. The high cost of providing and maintaining school buildings, along with the cost of running such schools, including staff salaries, is such that it would not be feasible to pursue such a policy.

https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector/Progress-to-Date-and-Future-Directions-Forum-on-Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector.pdf

im not convinced that thats the reason that gov isn't building more schools in some areas, but if one were, can we not get recognition from the state then that doing little to nothing is unfeasible too.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Indeed you said "Those wanting to attend denominational schools, private schools or schools with a specified narrow "ethos" would be the ones making the special private transport arrangements for their kids". So you've deliberately singled out those to be discriminated against using tax pay money. Have you not?

No, I'm saying they could opt-out if that is their wish. They should be as entitled as anyone else to attend a neutral school, but if they want a school with a customised ethos, they should make their own transport arrangements to it.

Absolam wrote: »

I am being specific; the Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church. Regardless of whether you think it has no objective meaning.

It also calls itself "the one true church" (as do many other religions)
"Catholic" means "universal", but unless/until there is universal agreement that the guy in Rome is the ultimate boss, these kinds of terminology can only be subjective and self-promoting.

expectationlost

Parents must ensure Catholic schools’ ethos maintained - archbishop http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/parents-must-ensure-catholic-schools-ethos-maintained-archbishop-1.2426163

“We have Catholic schools because parents want them. It is parents who must insist that the religious ethos of our schools is respected and not abandoned,” Dr Neary said. For those who do not want faith education for their children, it is appropriate that non-faith schools be provided. It is faith that makes Catholic schools Catholic and what makes Catholic education different.”

has he not listened to Diarmaid Maritn even who recently suggested they could split junior/senior girls/boys two building schools and give one building to others

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope, that's exactly the same non-point but *now with 200% extra word count FREE!*

That sounds remarkably like your "pretty much 100% likelihood of Muslims elsewhere preferring to set up Muslim schools" statistic. And yet you accuse others of 'blather'

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The RCC don't listen to what anybody says either, so we shouldn't bother our little heads having an opinion on them either, huh.

Well, we certainly shouldn't bother trying to give the impression our opinions are in some way relevant to their decision making process, particularly if we're using spurious statistics, that's true.......

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

No, I'm saying they could opt-out if that is their wish. They should be as entitled as anyone else to attend a neutral school, but if they want a school with a customised ethos, they should make their own transport arrangements to it.

You didn't though. You never said they could opt out, you said those wanting to attend different schools from the ones you prefer would be the ones making the special private transport arrangements for their kids. That's discriminating against them using tax payer money. Which is what you're objecting to when you believe it only affects schools you favour, but are happy to propose implementing when it affects schools you don't.

recedite wrote: »

It also calls itself "the one true church" (as do many other religions)
"Catholic" means "universal", but unless/until there is universal agreement that the guy in Rome is the ultimate boss, these kinds of terminology can only be subjective and self-promoting.

I imagine they do, but still they call themselves the Catholic Church as I said (and showed). I'm quite happy to agree catholic means universal; it's not as if I haven't pointed it out myself before. Nor have I said the name of the Catholic Church is an objective one; it certainly is no more so than the name 'recedite' is.
Yet it remains beyond dispute that the Catholic Church does indeed call itself the Catholic Church.

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

Parents must ensure Catholic schools’ ethos maintained - archbishop
has he not listened to Diarmaid Maritn even who recently suggested they could split junior/senior girls/boys two building schools and give one building to others

Well, he has said in your quote that "For those who do not want faith education for their children, it is appropriate that non-faith schools be provided."
So it sounds like he might well be thinking along the lines of Archbishop Martin.

expectationlost

Absolam wrote: »

Well, he has said in your quote that "For those who do not want faith education for their children, it is appropriate that non-faith schools be provided."
So it sounds like he might well be thinking along the lines of Archbishop Martin.

it acutally sounds like he's putting it back to the government and wants to maintain a monopoly on school buildings

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

it acutally sounds like he's putting it back to the government and wants to maintain a monopoly on school buildings

Well, he doesn't have a monopoly on school buildings now, so that seems unlikely. If you mean retain control of the school buildings he owns, you can hardly fault him for that, can you?

expectationlost

Absolam wrote: »

Well, he doesn't have a monopoly on school buildings now, so that seems unlikely. If you mean retain control of the school buildings he owns, you can hardly fault him for that, can you?

yes he does, he has a monopoly of schools we fund

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

yes he does, he owns a monopoly of schools we fund

But he doesn't? The Catholic Church (or various organisations belonging to it) owns many of the school buildings in Ireland, but by no means all. Nor can I see any reason the Church should simply give away what it owns.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

But he doesn't? The Catholic Church (or various organisations belonging to it) owns many of the school buildings in Ireland, but by no means all. Nor can I see any reason the Church should simply give away what it owns.

You don't have to own 100% of something to have a monopoly. Are we back to personal dictionaries here again?

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You don't have to own 100% of something to have a monopoly. Are we back to personal dictionaries here again?

Can you tell us what proportion of schools Archbishop Neary owns? Or even the Catholic Church, including or excluding all it's various religious orders?
Given your penchant for somewhat untrustworty statistics, I'm sure you'll understand my asking for a reputable source for the numbers you cite.
As for dictionaries, I usually prefer to go with Merriam Webster myself. They define monopoly as:
complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market.
alternatives would be:
complete ownership or control of something
exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
exclusive possession or control
a commodity controlled by one party

I have to admit, I usually can't tell how your personal dictionary will define something until you surprise me with it. I'm all agog at the moment.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Can you tell us what proportion of schools Archbishop Neary owns? Or even the Catholic Church, including or excluding all it's various religious orders?
Given your penchant for somewhat untrustworty statistics, I'm sure you'll understand my asking for a reputable source for the numbers you cite.
As for dictionaries, I usually prefer to go with Merriam Webster myself. They define monopoly as:
complete control of the entire supply of goods or of a service in a certain area or market.
alternatives would be:
complete ownership or control of something
exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
exclusive possession or control
a commodity controlled by one party

I have to admit, I usually can't tell how your personal dictionary will define something until you surprise me with it. I'm all agog at the moment.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/education/90-of-primary-schools-are-catholic-150202.html
Easy. It's 90%. I guess you knew this though but were too embarrassed to say? And that's nationally, so at practical local level it is often 100%. If 90% to 100% of any other market, where the consumer has no effective choice of supplier, was controlled by one supplier it would be broken up immediately by the state as a monopoly.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/education/90-of-primary-schools-are-catholic-150202.html
Easy. It's 90%. I guess you knew this though but were too embarrassed to say? And that's nationally, so at practical local level it is often 100%. If 90% to 100% of any other market, where the consumer has no effective choice of supplier, was controlled by one supplier it would be broken up immediately by the state as a monopoly.

Eh, no. I might be embarrased if I were pointing out an article showing 90% of all primary schools are under Catholic patronage, when that's not how many schools are owned either by Archbishop Neary, or the Catholic Church, including or excluding all it's various religious orders though. We are all aware that various (Catholic and otherwise) religious bodies are patrons of State owned schools. Aren't we?
Though obviously 90% wouldn't be a monopoly, being somewhat short of "complete" and "entire". 10% short, if we're being precise, which I'm sure we want to be.
Anyways... can you tell us what proportion of schools Archbishop Neary or the Catholic Church owns?

PopePalpatine

Ah sure discrimination is fine, shure you're just too lazy to drive up to an hour away every day to get your child to an ET school.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

Though obviously 90% wouldn't be a monopoly, being somewhat short of "complete" and "entire". 10% short, if we're being precise, which I'm sure we want to be.

Carefully ignoring that for all practical purposes this is 100% control at most local levels. But who'd notice you doing that, eh?
This is, of course, the oldest theist filibustering twaddle in the book: "it's not 100%, it's only 99%". You've been clogging up this and other threads with this kind of irrelevant nonsense in a laughably transparently fake quest for "accuracy".

Absolam wrote: »

Anyways... can you tell us what proportion of schools Archbishop Neary or the Catholic Church owns?

I don't care who owns them TBH. If a penny of state funding goes to a school in any fashion they should be non-denominational and no theist brainwashing should occur there.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I imagine they do, but still they call themselves the Catholic Church as I said (and showed). I'm quite happy to agree catholic means universal; it's not as if I haven't pointed it out myself before. Nor have I said the name of the Catholic Church is an objective one; it certainly is no more so than the name 'recedite' is.
Yet it remains beyond dispute that the Catholic Church does indeed call itself the Catholic Church.

It's also beyond dispute that it calls itself "the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church", "the Church of Jesus Christ", "the one true Church", "the Universal Church", and of course the ever-popular "the Church". It regards all these as descriptions, not its "official name" as such. After all, it's the One and Only -- what'd it need pesky things like names for?

Absolam wrote: »

I am being specific; the Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church.

If you're using WP as some sort of authority as to the supposed lack of ambiguity of the term "Catholic Church", I'm somewhat forced to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_(disambiguation)

Hotblack Desiato

alaimacerc wrote: »

After all, it's the One and Only -- what'd it need pesky things like names for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5PLkFuxrY

sorry :pac:

If you're using WP as some sort of authority as to the supposed lack of ambiguity of the term "Catholic Church", I'm somewhat forced to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_(disambiguation)

http://ireland.anglican.org/about/

About Us

The Church of Ireland:
is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion which has 70 million members in 164 countries.
is an apostolic church, maintaining an unbroken link with the early apostles and drawing on the apostolic faith in its teaching and worship.
is a Catholic and Reformed church.

More here
http://ireland.anglican.org/information/6

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Carefully ignoring that for all practical purposes this is 100% control at most local levels. But who'd notice you doing that, eh?
This is, of course, the oldest theist filibustering twaddle in the book: "it's not 100%, it's only 99%". You've been clogging up this and other threads with this kind of irrelevant nonsense in a laughably transparently fake quest for "accuracy".

I can't help but notice you'er ignoring the actual point in favour of your newest dodgy statistic. However, if 90% means 100% in some local areas, it means considerably less than 90% in other local areas. Possibly as low as 0%, if you want to play that game. And when I say it's not 100%, it's 90%, that's 9% less than your next dodgy statistic "it's not 100%, it's only 99%". Still not monopoly territory.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't care who owns them TBH. If a penny of state funding goes to a school in any fashion they should be non-denominational and no theist brainwashing should occur there.

Well good for you! Though it was the point we were discussing, that you decided to weigh in on...... with another couple of imaginative statistics.

DK man

expectationlost wrote: »

yes he does, he owns a monopoly of schools we fund

We also includes catholic parents too - just sayin