How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

silverharp

I gather Dr Ali Salem is on matt cooper , saying that young muslim girls should not be mixing with boys in school

One eyed Jack

silverharp wrote: »

I gather Dr Ali Salem is on matt cooper , saying that young muslim girls should not be mixing with boys in school

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/call-for-state-schools-to-accommodate-islamic-beliefs-1.1915810


I have no idea why Atheist Ireland thinks an atheist would want to send their children to such a school tbh -


http://atheist.ie/2014/09/dr-ali-selim-of-the-islamic-cultural-centre-calls-for-revolution-of-inclusivity-in-irish-schools-and-an-upheaval-in-irish-educational-perspectives/

looksee

Did you actually read the article?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Did you actually read the article?

I did. That's what has me baffled!

And, well, that's why I asked the question...

I don't get why Atheist Ireland would want anything to do with the school if the conditions of attending the school are like that. They suggest that the Islamic school should be an option for parents who fail to secure a place for their children in Catholic schools...

Seriously, why would they want to?

As for Ali Selim's declaration that boys should not be allowed to mix with Muslim girls, well, my neighbours are Muslim and their children don't go to the same school as my child (they go to the local ET school), but they all meet up after school and at weekends and there's none of that "no mixing" nonsense.

looksee

I did. That's what has me baffled!

Read it again!!

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Read it again!!

I read it again already :pac:

Right -

Atheist Ireland welcomes Ali's call for inclusion.

(Similar goals to their own)

Ali's call for inclusion means Ali wants inclusion for Muslims in other schools.

(Again, similar goals to AI)

AI points out the ethos of the Islamic school is, well, Islamic.

(and this is where I'm lost)

AI suggests that parents who are refused a place for their child in Catholic ethos schools could enrol them in Islamic schools...


(I'm struggling to think of any reason why AI thinks any parents who are atheist would want to!)


I'm guessing they're pointing out that Ali is calling for more inclusive schools, while not being very inclusive with the Islamic school. And then they suggest that Ali could become a member of Atheist Ireland...

(I'm lost again at that one)

I even went and read the article linked to in the AI piece about access to a neutral education environment, and that was even more confusing because the same ECHR ruled in the case of an Italian couple who were non-religious, that their Human Rights were not breached by having their child enrolled in a Catholic ethos school!

(I'll see if I can find fhe case if you like, but for now, AI's impression that atheists would want to send their children to an Islamic ethos school has me wondering is it supposed to be satire or are they serious?)


Italian case I was referring to -

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed

looksee

(I'll see if I can find fhe case if you like, but for now, AI's impression that atheists would want to send their children to an Islamic ethos school has me wondering is it supposed to be satire or are they serious?)

A bit laboured, but that is how I read it.

Shrap

looksee wrote: »

A bit laboured, but that is how I read it.

Same here. Fairly obvious from the first few paragraphs really....

Gave me a (slightly jaundiced) laugh anyway.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

A bit laboured, but that is how I read it.

Shrap wrote: »

Same here. Fairly obvious from the first few paragraphs really....

Gave me a (slightly jaundiced) laugh anyway.

To be fair, given their recent commentary on the content of the religious curriculum, I wasn't sure whether they were actually being serious this time, or were they being satirical with their commentary about the nativity that time. It'd be helpful if they could at least make their intent clear is all. I didn't get it, but cheers!

looksee

Probably more sarcasm than satire I think!

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Probably more sarcasm than satire I think!

It's a bit awkward sometimes, and I hate having to ask other people for help... :pac:


I wouldn't mind but Oscar Wilde is one of my favorite writers precisely because of the fact that he was so adept at writing satire/sarcasm/irony

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would just never want you to think I actually do duck and dive and try avoid things.

Alas this is exactly what I do think and I can (and have) discussed and shown direct and numerous examples of it, and my reasons for thinking it, off line or off thread or in private to anyone who asks.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

so his credibility with regard to social policy and secularism is questionable to say the least

Then as I said it would not have been relevant at all to my post in any way. Because as I said I was quoting his words because he was making my point with better language than I was. Nothing else he has done or is holds any relevance to what I quoted or why. If he turned out tomorrow to be a mass murdering, child raping, kleptomaniac, granny beater.... I would still quote those lines I quoted for the very same reason I quoted them.

All that said however.... you yourself pointed out the level of religiosity people running for office have to show in the US in order to gain traction there. And in the light of that fact, with which I agree, the content of the Keynote speech in question was massively brave to make at any level of US political office. Let alone for someone ear marked for the highest office in that land!

He may claim to be religious, and actually I do believe he is, but as what many people would call an "atheist"..... and even an "Extreme atheist" or "fundamentalist atheist" at times..... I would not change a WORD of that keynote speech with regards to secularism.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I prefer to give my opinion in my own words

As do I of course! But it is nearly impossible to read and hear the words of others, especially when put beautifully, without assimilating those words and phrases and sound bites into your own speech.

And rather than simply pass the words of others off as my own when that happens I, when possible, prefer to cite my source because A) This is the more honest thing to do and if you do not do it and someone notices you are passing someone else's words off as your own.... you pay a justifiable price in credibility.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't believe that can be done if they just parrot the words of others because someone else said it better.

Agreed. That is usually why I do BOTH. If you scroll back and read every mention of Obama I made in this thread for example you will find that not only did I quote what he said on the subject.... but I did so beside me saying the same thing in MY words on the subject.

And this is a powerful linguistic tool, and an honest one. Because communication is HARD. Sometimes you say something one way and even people who might agree with you disagree because the way YOU say it somehow does not click or gel with them.

So saying something in your own words, but then having someone else say the same thing but in a completely different way, can often double or more (more than the sum of the parts effect) how accessible people find your text.

So do not write it off too readily, especially as someone who I have observed time and time again having difficulty communicating with others on the forum, getting frustrated with that (not entirely unjustifiably at times) and being driven by that frustration to getting unjustifiably petty and personal and uppity and haughty..... which fuels the frustration-petty spiral still further.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

AI suggests that parents who are refused a place for their child in Catholic ethos schools could enrol them in Islamic schools... (I'm struggling to think of any reason why AI thinks any parents who are atheist would want to!)

I have not had time to follow this story, the articles, or AIs input into the matter. But I would expect that the reasons an atheist would want their child to have access to the local Islamic school with an Islamic ethos..... having failed to obtain one in the catholic school with a catholic ethos...... would be IDENTICAL to the reasons why they first sought a place in the catholic school with the catholic ethos originally?

So perhaps you are asking the right question but too late in the process? The question is not why an atheist parent would want the secondary option to enrol their child in an Islamic school..... but why they wanted the option of a catholic one in the first place?

And I reckon if you can answer one, you will answer the other by default. It will be things like geographic convenience and the other plethora of reasons that we already have. The AI message would then be a simple one of "Parents should have access to the schools local to them and not be precluded from ANY of them based on religious ethos".

Of course none of this would be a problem at all if ALL schools were state run secular schools with a fixed government issued curriculum.... and religious schools with a religious ethos and curriculum were run by the relevant churches as an After-School, Before-School, Sunday-School or other such option in every bit the same way as kids who leave school and go to their sports club, speech and drama course, or whatever.

Keep education.... like science, maths, language, literature, business, geography, history, world religion, physical and sports education.... and so forth...... in schools.

Keep hobbies.... Speech and drama, card games, religion.... and so forth.... out and in the relevant club houses.

Problem solved

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course none of this would be a problem at all if ALL schools were state run secular schools with a fixed government issued curriculum.... and religious schools with a religious ethos and curriculum were run by the relevant churches as an After-School, Before-School, Sunday-School or other such option in every bit the same way as kids who leave school and go to their sports club, speech and drama course, or whatever.

Keep education.... like science, maths, language, literature, business, geography, history, world religion, physical and sports education.... and so forth...... in schools.

Keep hobbies.... Speech and drama, card games, religion.... and so forth.... out and in the relevant club houses.

Problem solved

Generally in agreement with much of what you've said there, but this bit about ALL schools being secular schools, I don't agree. I think schools with a religious ethos serve a particular purpose for their community that is not necessarily based on geographic location, whether it be the RC community or one of the other minority religious communities. The State should also have secular schools as an option for parents who do not want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think schools with a religious ethos serve a particular purpose for their community that is not necessarily based on geographic location, whether it be the RC community or one of the other minority religious communities.

I am not so sure they serve a useful purpose at all, so not so sure what you think that purpose is. It is going to have to go into that vague assertion category along with "Religion has informed morality" and "Religion provides social cohesion" that you throw out but never really back up in any way (except with mutual reference to each other).

But whatever those useful things are, can they not equally be served by what I said above? Which is that the MAIN schools run by the STATE that ALL children go to every day are one thing..... but religious schools as a before/after/weekend option still actually exist under the purview of the church not the state (for example, I am the last person to come up with the final solution, so nothing I am saying here is rigid, just general meta-ideas on the topic).

So nothing I said abolishes the existence of religious schools. Rather it would be a more modular almost faculty type structure and distributed. "All STATE schools" would be secular not "all schools".

State school with a state curriculum for everyone, with no one being precluded based on ethos or any other arbitrary nonsense.

Then optional schools on whatever other topics, with whatever kind of curriculum they want, provided and run by the interested party in question.

So not seeing the problem really?

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Generally in agreement with much of what you've said there, but this bit about ALL schools being secular schools, I don't agree. I think schools with a religious ethos serve a particular purpose for their community..

How about a compromise then. Religious schools with a fully integrated religious curriculum allowed to exist, but in a private capacity and not funded by the state. Because they would be only suitable for a particular private community, and not for the general public.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

How about a compromise then. Religious schools with a fully integrated religious curriculum allowed to exist, but in a private capacity and not funded by the state. Because they would be only suitable for a particular private community, and not for the general public.

The State is obliged by the Irish Constitution to provide for children's education, and parents are not obliged to send their children to schools which they don't want to, but the State still has to pay for the education of those children, so it's not simply a question of withdrawing funding from schools with a religious ethos.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not so sure they serve a useful purpose at all, so not so sure what you think that purpose is. It is going to have to go into that vague assertion category along with "Religion has informed morality" and "Religion provides social cohesion" that you throw out but never really back up in any way (except with mutual reference to each other).

But whatever those useful things are, can they not equally be served by what I said above? Which is that the MAIN schools run by the STATE that ALL children go to every day are one thing..... but religious schools as a before/after/weekend option still actually exist under the purview of the church not the state (for example, I am the last person to come up with the final solution, so nothing I am saying here is rigid, just general meta-ideas on the topic).

No, they can't, because parents who identify as members of a religious community are entitled to send their children to schools which foster the ethos of their religion. The State can provide as many State run schools as they like, but they cannot interfere with the ethos of schools with a religious ethos. If the majority of parents send their children to State run schools, then the State run schools receive more funding than the schools with a religious ethos.

So nothing I said abolishes the existence of religious schools. Rather it would be a more modular almost faculty type structure and distributed. "All STATE schools" would be secular not "all schools".

State school with a state curriculum for everyone, with no one being precluded based on ethos or any other arbitrary nonsense.

Then optional schools on whatever other topics, with whatever kind of curriculum they want, provided and run by the interested party in question.

So not seeing the problem really?

No problem with any of the above either myself. That's exactly the kind of education system I would want - a secular education provided by the State, and a religious education provided by religious organisations.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they can't, because parents who identify as members of a religious community are entitled to send their children to schools which foster the ethos of their religion.

And I repeat, nothing I said precludes that. There would be a state run secular school system with a secular curriculum AND There would be church run schools with a religious ethos. And the parents you speak of would be entitled to send their children to any of THOSE that they want so long as they fulfil state law about educating their children to state standards.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State can provide as many State run schools as they like, but they cannot interfere with the ethos of schools with a religious ethos. If the majority of parents send their children to State run schools, then the State run schools receive more funding than the schools with a religious ethos.

We are in danger of talking past each other as I think elements of what you are saying are about how it IS now in this country, where as the majority of what I am trying to say is related to how it should be in my ideal world. And I am saying very little about how to get there from here, because I am less informed or confident on that subject. I am talking about how it ideally should be and I think you are replying past me by discussing how it actually is.

But there should be no state runs school with a religious ethos in my view. Or more accurately I have been shown no reason why there should be. That is the point of secularism.

The state schools should have one state secular curriculum on maths, language, history, geography, business, science and so forth. There should be no religion there at all except where it behooves a subject to include it (Like the bible in Literature studies or world religion is history and so forth).

And so people of all faiths (and no faiths at all) can go to those schools.

If people want to provide or attend ADDITIONAL courses in ADDITIONAL schools with religious courses, a religious ethos and so forth OUTSIDE that secular school system then they should of course be allowed to provide them or attend them.

They should not be state funded at all however. Except in the same way as OTHER hobbies are state funded (for example the Sea Angling Club I am associated with has received funding from many sources that fund social initiatives, including state sources and the Lotto to name but two).

But why state run, state funded schools with a state curriculum should be facilitating or funding or hosting a religious ethos at all is not clear in an ideal world. They do not fund peoples other hobbies in general. So why the hobby of religion?

If the current constitution in some way demands that, then much the poorer for that constitution and changing it is one of the things worthy of us working towards.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I repeat, nothing I said precludes that. There would be a state run secular school system with a secular curriculum AND There would be church run schools with a religious ethos. And the parents you speak of would be entitled to send their children to any of THOSE that they want so long as they fulfil state law about educating their children to state standards.

We are in danger of talking past each other as I think elements of what you are saying are about how it IS now in this country, where as the majority of what I am trying to say is related to how it should be in my ideal world. And I am saying very little about how to get there from here, because I am less informed or confident on that subject. I am talking about how it ideally should be and I think you are replying past me by discussing how it actually is.

That's the whole purpose of this thread though - how do we achieve secular schools / educational equality in Ireland? Just how do we get there?

But there should be no state runs school with a religious ethos in my view. Or more accurately I have been shown no reason why there should be. That is the point of secularism.

We're agreed on that point.

The state schools should have one state secular curriculum on maths, language, history, geography, business, science and so forth. There should be no religion there at all except where it behooves a subject to include it (Like the bible in Literature studies or world religion is history and so forth).

And so people of all faiths (and no faiths at all) can go to those schools.

If people want to provide or attend ADDITIONAL courses in ADDITIONAL schools with religious courses, a religious ethos and so forth OUTSIDE that secular school system then they should of course be allowed to provide them or attend them.

We're agreed on all of the above.

They should not be state funded at all however. Except in the same way as OTHER hobbies are state funded (for example the Sea Angling Club I am associated with has received funding from many sources that fund social initiatives, including state sources and the Lotto to name but two).

This is where we may disagree somewhat. For me personally, I can say I would have no issue with funding my own child's education. But, through my taxes, the State provides for the education of not just my child, but also the education of every other child, and I don't have a say in whether the Government should or shouldn't fund the education of the children of my neighbours who are Muslim for example. The point is that the State is obliged to provide for, and to fund their education, whether I like it or not.

But why state run, state funded schools with a state curriculum should be facilitating or funding or hosting a religious ethos at all is not clear in an ideal world. They do not fund peoples other hobbies in general. So why the hobby of religion?

Because we don't live in an ideal world where religion is generally considered a hobby.

If the current constitution in some way demands that, then much the poorer for that constitution and changing it is one of the things worthy of us working towards.

Michael in his first post on this thread where he outlined the PACT proposals, suggested that an education referendum was an option. I don't think one is necessary. I believe in offering parents more choice. I think a referendum to create a separation between religion and the State should be all encompassing if anything, ie - separation between religion and the State with the aim of creating a secular society.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just how do we get there?

Sure, but understanding the ideals about where we are going is also a large part of that conversation and the one I am focusing on in what I am writing.

The first step in getting anywhere is understanding where you ideally want to get in the first place, is it not?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't have a say in whether the Government should or shouldn't fund the education of the children of my neighbours who are Muslim for example.

They should fund them in EXACTLY the same way as they fund you. It should be entirely blind to religion. Just because they are a different religion to any you might hold (I am still not quite sure WHAT your religion if any is) this does not warrant funding them any differently.

And a state run, state owned school system with a secular curriculum would achieve _exactly_ that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point is that the State is obliged to provide for, and to fund their education, whether I like it or not.

And what I am proposing will do EXACTLY that so while you say you "disagree somewhat".... I am entirely baffled as to what the disagreement even is. Everything I have said achieves exactly what you want here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because we don't live in an ideal world where religion is generally considered a hobby.

And yet that is, essentially, what it is and why the government should be blind to it when providing access to a state school system for all the children in that state. People can consider their hobby to be whatever they want to consider it to be. In their own time.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Michael in his first post on this thread where he outlined the PACT proposals, suggested that an education referendum was an option.

And I leave it to people like that to get down to the nitty gritty. When it gets down to the nitty gritty of the legal detail I am about as clued in as that atheist on this part of the forum who goes around pretending to be a lawyer when he blatantly is not.

Which is to say I can understand bits of it when it is put before me (Like if someone like Micheal shows what it is now.... and what it should be changed to) enough to evaluate if it is a good, bad, or neutral move in terms of my ideals.

But actually coming up with what the legal and political steps should be at that level is very much quite beyond me. I need someone else to do that and then put it before me alas.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think one is necessary. I believe in offering parents more choice.

As do I which, at the risk of becoming a stuck record, is EXACTLY what the things I have been saying would do. There would be a core curriculum accessible and applicable and mandatory for all children in education and then in a modular fashion parents can insert the Dongle of whatever other choices and extra-curricular education they want on top of that in their own time.

They would have all the choice in the world that way! And they could seek funding for it in the same way as everyone else who seeks funding for a project, a club, an association, a charity and so forth.

But I certainly see no argument from anyone why the state or the tax payer should be funding one childs hobby like Christianity any more than it should be funding the child to leave school and go play snooker down the local snooker club in it's hobby time.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure, but understanding the ideals about where we are going is also a large part of that conversation and the one I am focusing on in what I am writing.

The first step in getting anywhere is understanding where you ideally want to get in the first place, is it not?

Well I know where I want to get to, and I understand where you want to get to, but where we appear to disagree is that you would consider religion a hobby, whereas I do not. We appear to agree on a secular education system, but you appear to want religious ethos schools solely funded by the members of that particular religion. I personally would have no problem with this, but then I should have to pay less tax if I am to fund my own child's education.

A system like that would create a society where parents who could not afford to pay for their children's education, their children would suffer for lack of education. It also raises the question as to what services provided by Government would have to be cut in order to fund State schools, because their revenue wouldn't be coming out of my pocket so much any more, nor ouf of the pockets of people who do not have children.

They should fund them in EXACTLY the same way as they fund you. It should be entirely blind to religion. Just because they are a different religion to any you might hold (I am still not quite sure WHAT your religion if any is) this does not warrant funding them any differently.

And a state run, state owned school system with a secular curriculum would achieve _exactly_ that.

They already fund schools in the way you're suggesting, through the patronage system - all schools, regardless of their ethos, are funded exactly the same way by the State.

(I'm Roman Catholic btw, and my wife is non-religious, and we chose to raise our child in the RC faith)

And what I am proposing will do EXACTLY that so while you say you "disagree somewhat".... I am entirely baffled as to what the disagreement even is. Everything I have said achieves exactly what you want here.

You appear to want to withdraw State funding from religious ethos schools. The State does not directly fund the schools themselves. The State funds the education of the children, and if a religious ethos school has 500 students, and a State school has 100 students, that entitles the religious ethos school to more funding than the State school.

And yet that is, essentially, what it is and why the government should be blind to it when providing access to a state school system for all the children in that state. People can consider their hobby to be whatever they want to consider it to be. In their own time.

But that's just it - they do consider it whatever they want in their own time, and their own time also includes the time their children spend on their hobby if you like, and because we all pay taxes into a common pot, even the people who don't partake in a particular hobby, and people who don't even have children, will be indirectly paying for other people's State sponsored hobby anyway!

I'm very open to the suggestion that I pay for my own hobbies and that of my child, if it means I pay less tax. I think that could be a very difficult sell though, particularly to people who can't pay for their own hobbies. They would have no option but to send their children to a lesser funded State school.

And I leave it to people like that to get down to the nitty gritty. When it gets down to the nitty gritty of the legal detail I am about as clued in as that atheist on this part of the forum who goes around pretending to be a lawyer when he blatantly is not.

Which is to say I can understand bits of it when it is put before me (Like if someone like Micheal shows what it is now.... and what it should be changed to) enough to evaluate if it is a good, bad, or neutral move in terms of my ideals.

But actually coming up with what the legal and political steps should be at that level is very much quite beyond me. I need someone else to do that and then put it before me alas.

But all the information is all there available on the Internet, for anyone to read up on it and inform themselves. I don't mean to tell you your business, but one of the problems in this country is people who aren't willing to read up on this stuff, and then complain that "they didn't know", when they run into difficulty, because "nobody told them". Nobody should have to tell them. They should be capable of doing some basic research for themselves, and it doesn't take a legal or political mind to understand the nitty gritty, it's all easily accessible.

As do I which, at the risk of becoming a stuck record, is EXACTLY what the things I have been saying would do. There would be a core curriculum accessible and applicable and mandatory for all children in education and then in a modular fashion parents can insert the Dongle of whatever other choices and extra-curricular education they want on top of that in their own time.

It's the funding of the education of children in religious ethos schools, by the State, seems to be the bone of contention here.

They would have all the choice in the world that way! And they could seek funding for it in the same way as everyone else who seeks funding for a project, a club, an association, a charity and so forth.

The various patronage organisations do that already through the patronage system. They already seek funding exactly the way you describe, and are allocated funding on the basis of the number of students enrolled in the school. There are also other types of funding and grants they have to apply to the DES for, and the department can often refuse funding because it's either not a high enough priority, or the DES simply doesn't have the funding within it's budget.

But I certainly see no argument from anyone why the state or the tax payer should be funding one childs hobby like Christianity any more than it should be funding the child to leave school and go play snooker down the local snooker club in it's hobby time.

If anyone cares to present one, I'm all ears too. If someone wants to apply for State funding to pay for their children's hobby, whatever that hobby may be, I certainly won't stand in their way. If someone wants the State to withdraw funding from children's hobbies, I'm all ears for that one too!!

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

where we appear to disagree is that you would consider religion a hobby, whereas I do not.

Hard to know how else to classify it really. Perhaps people engaged in that hobby want to consider it more than that. But then again so too do many followers of Football clubs who see football as a way of life. But seeing a hobby as a way of life, does not make it one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I should have to pay less tax if I am to fund my own child's education.

The state and school does not fund your child to go play snooker in the local club either. Do you feel this means you should pay less tax too?

The state will fund your childs education in everything I said. Nothing I said suggests you have to fund your own child's education. The state education, and state curriculum, open to ALL, will be funded by the state in what I was ruminating on in much the same way it is now.

It is your child's EXTRA CURRICULAR activities that the state would not, and from my perspective should not be funding. If you want your child to learn what it means to be catholic, to learn how to play snooker, to learn the world is flat, to learn how to bake brownies, to learn how to drive a car, to learn to fish, or to learn karate.... and so on..... than that should your issue. Not mine. Not the states. And certainly not the Bursary.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A system like that would create a society where parents who could not afford to pay for their children's education

No idea what system you are going on about now. It is certainly NOT the one I have proposed at all. Nothing I have said so far is even remotely related to what you are now talking about.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You appear to want to withdraw State funding from religious ethos schools.

What I want in an ideal world is for the state to set a secular state curriculum without any pandering to any religious ethos and compel any schools that seek state funding to implement that curriculum.

If parents want extra curricular activities outside of that, that is their issue not mine. If you want your child to be taught the creator of the universe impregnated an underage virgin in order to give birth to itself then YOU teach that to them, or pay someone else to, leave me, the state, and the school curriculum out of it.

The school curriculum or those that provide it should no more be in the business of selling a religious ethos than they should be a political one. Let alone denying access to children based on a conflict of those ethos.

They SHOULD be solely in the business of implementing and delivering a universal secular curriculum accessible by all equally.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

people who don't partake in a particular hobby, and people who don't even have children, will be indirectly paying for other people's State sponsored hobby anyway!

Again not all that relevant to what I am proposing and apparently more relevant to this "system" you mentioned above which has nothing to do with the "system" I am proposing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm very open to the suggestion that I pay for my own hobbies and that of my child, if it means I pay less tax.

And if in a magical world my ideals were implemented, and you ended up paying less tax, then I would be happy for you. But I see no reason to expect it would. Most of what I propose is a change in the curriculum for example. I see little reason to expect the cost of funding schools, on going teacher training in those schools, implementing and updating the curriculum over time, and all the other expenses with running a state school system..... are at all likely to change.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But all the information is all there available on the Internet, for anyone to read up on

Errrrr yes, that is what I just said. I said I am more than capable of reading up on these things. And understanding them. And when others propose changes I am well capable of understanding those changes.

It is actually proposing changes myself that I give over to those more educated and invested in the subject of law than I am. They are trained in it and I am not. Translating "I think we should do X" into "Well that would mean changing this document in this way.... that law that way.... and getting a court ruling of this type....." and so forth that is beyond me and, I warrant, you too.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State is obliged by the Irish Constitution to provide for children's education, and parents are not obliged to send their children to schools which they don't want to, but the State still has to pay for the education of those children, so it's not simply a question of withdrawing funding from schools with a religious ethos.

Fixed your post
By providing secular schools which are suitable for everyone, the state would have fulfilled its obligation to provide for free primary education.
If some people choose to establish and attend private (eg religious) schools instead, the state must allow that too.
There is also a constitutional obligation on the state to provide reasonable aid to private educational initiative, but this is open to interpretation. Personally I would interpret this by paying a very small grant to such schools.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hard to know how else to classify it really. Perhaps people engaged in that hobby want to consider it more than that. But then again so too do many followers of Football clubs who see football as a way of life. But seeing a hobby as a way of life, does not make it one.

If you want to call it a hobby, I don't mind, but can we at least agree on what secularism is, which is the separation of Church and State? Football and the State isn't an issue I'm aware of.

The state and school does not fund your child to go play snooker in the local club either. Do you feel this means you should pay less tax too?

I don't understand what you're asking here. I'm not being asked to pay any extra tax for my child to go play snooker. I can't pay less for something that I'm not being asked to pay for in the first place?

The state will fund your childs education in everything I said. Nothing I said suggests you have to fund your own child's education. The state education, and state curriculum, open to ALL, will be funded by the state in what I was ruminating on in much the same way it is now.

It is your child's EXTRA CURRICULAR activities that the state would not, and from my perspective should not be funding. If you want your child to learn what it means to be catholic, to learn how to play snooker, to learn the world is flat, to learn how to bake brownies, to learn how to drive a car, to learn to fish, or to learn karate.... and so on..... than that should your issue. Not mine. Not the states. And certainly not the Bursary.

Religion is not an extra-curricular activity in a school with a religious ethos. It's part of the curriculum, and cannot be removed from the curriculum of a religious ethos school. If I send my child to a religious ethos school, the State is obliged to provide funding for my child's education, in the same way as if I were to send my child to a secular school, the State would still be obliged to provide funding for my child's education.

The fact that you may not want to pay for that, is actually your issue, not mine. I don't have a problem paying more tax if the extra revenue went to providing funding for more secular State schools.

No idea what system you are going on about now. It is certainly NOT the one I have proposed at all. Nothing I have said so far is even remotely related to what you are now talking about.

What sort of an education system do you think you'd be creating if I can afford to pay for my child's education in a religious ethos school, and someone else who would want to send their child to the same school can not because they are unemployed for example? Send their children to the State school with it's minimum standard of education because they can't afford any extra-curricular activities?

Where's the equality in education there?

What I want in an ideal world is for the state to set a secular state curriculum without any pandering to any religious ethos and compel any schools that seek state funding to implement that curriculum.

They already do. It's one of the conditions of receiving funding from the State already that they must implement the State curriculum.

If parents want extra curricular activities outside of that, that is their issue not mine. If you want your child to be taught the creator of the universe impregnated an underage virgin in order to give birth to itself then YOU teach that to them, or pay someone else to, leave me, the state, and the school curriculum out of it.

If you're talking about a secular State school, that's fine. If you're talking about a school with a religious ethos, then I thought we had agreed that they could apply for funding from the State to educate the children of parents who want that type of education for their children.

If you're denying funding to schools on the basis that they are religious ethos schools, and you expect parents to fund their children's education, then there are going to be parents who cannot afford to pay for their children's education - socioeconomic inequality.

The school curriculum or those that provide it should no more be in the business of selling a religious ethos than they should be a political one. Let alone denying access to children based on a conflict of those ethos.

They SHOULD be solely in the business of implementing and delivering a universal secular curriculum accessible by all equally.

But a religious ethos school is not solely in the business of delivering a universal secular curriculum.

And if in a magical world my ideals were implemented, and you ended up paying less tax, then I would be happy for you. But I see no reason to expect it would. Most of what I propose is a change in the curriculum for example. I see little reason to expect the cost of funding schools, on going teacher training in those schools, implementing and updating the curriculum over time, and all the other expenses with running a state school system..... are at all likely to change.

Most of what you're proposing exists already.

Errrrr yes, that is what I just said. I said I am more than capable of reading up on these things. And understanding them. And when others propose changes I am well capable of understanding those changes.

It is actually proposing changes myself that I give over to those more educated and invested in the subject of law than I am. They are trained in it and I am not. Translating "I think we should do X" into "Well that would mean changing this document in this way.... that law that way.... and getting a court ruling of this type....." and so forth that is beyond me and, I warrant, you too.

Fair enough.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you want to call it a hobby, I don't mind, but can we at least agree on what secularism is, which is the separation of Church and State? Football and the State isn't an issue I'm aware of.

Which is kinda the point I am making too. These things are not an issue because there is no reason for them to be. Most parents, most of the time, realize that if they want their children to experience or learn something outside the purview of the curriculum.... that it is their issue to deal with that.

And no one is seemingly capable of telling me why religion should be any different other than the current status quo makes it so. People should keep their hobbies out of our faces and certainly out of the state school system and curriculum.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't understand what you're asking here. I'm not being asked to pay any extra tax for my child to go play snooker.

The problem here is I do not understand what you do not understand. So it is hard to clarify other than to repeat the point. Removing religion from schools and the school curriculum is no valid reason to want to pay less tax. Your tax would still be going, in the same way as it is now, to paying for a state school system.

Just because you want your child to learn something not on that curriculum, snooker, fishing, religion, whatever..... is not grounds to expect less tax that I can see.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion is not an extra-curricular activity in a school with a religious ethos.

Lucky I was talking about my proposed system where it WOULD be then, and not a school where religion was the ethos. Again my point is really simple so I am not sure what the issue is: I see no reason why the state needs to have any involvement of, or funding of, schools with a religious ethos. Rather I feel the ideal situation is that there is one secular state curriculum and the state only funds schools that implement it.

Extra Curriculuar school with any other ethos should not be my problem or the states. They should fund and operate themselves, in the same way as the fishing club I help run does. Through membership fees, grants (public and private) and all the other ways private organisations, clubs, and associations do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What sort of an education system do you think you'd be creating if I can afford to pay for my child's education in a religious ethos school, and someone else who would want to send their child to the same school can not because they are unemployed for example?

I do not know. Ask someone who is proposing such a system. I certainly am not. I am envisioning a state run school system, open to all, and as affordable to all as it is now.

If you want to educate your child in anything else and you can not afford to do so.... not my issue. Nor the states.

Ideally, of course, both in the present system and the one I propose, education would be free (or as near as) to parents in the state school system.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They already do. It's one of the conditions of receiving funding from the State already that they must implement the State curriculum.

Lucky I am saying more than just that then is it not. I am also saying at great length what the curriculum should be like and more.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you're talking about a secular State school, that's fine. If you're talking about a school with a religious ethos, then I thought we had agreed that they could apply for funding from the State to educate the children of parents who want that type of education for their children.

But a religious ethos school is not solely in the business of delivering a universal secular curriculum.

No I remember agreeing no such thing. I remember multiple times saying that the state funds the core curriculum in schools that implement that curriculum. If you want the extra stuff, send your child to places offering that OUTSIDE the hours of the normal school hours, in the state school curriculum, that they already have to attend.

The "socioeconomic inequality" is not present in what I am talking about because we would then not be funding "religious ethos schools" at all. "Religious ethos" would have nothing to do with it _at all_. If you want a "religious ethos" education AFTER the funded secular one then you can then ADDITIONALLY send your children to facilities offering such things. That is my point/idea.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you want a "religious ethos" education AFTER the funded secular one then you can then ADDITIONALLY send your children to facilities offering such things. That is my point/idea.

I understand your point/idea, but you have yet to present any idea as to how to get there, other than calling people out on it when they shove it in your face, and I haven't done so, and I have no wish to do so. I was interested in how we are to achieve secular schools / educational equality in Ireland, but as you are focused on what should be, and I am focused on what is, it appears we are indeed talking over each others heads, and seeing as you admit that you are not versed in the legal nitty gritty enough to warrant a discussion on the matter, I don't see us making any headway in the discussion.

I am not leaving the discussion, and if at some point you feel you are informed well enough to engage in the discussion as to how we achieve secular schools / educational equality in Ireland, I'll still be available to discuss the issue.

For now though, it appears the status quo remains, and because I have the same fundamental rights as you do as a citizen of the State, I have the same right as you do to choose how my child is educated.

The fact that the State has not made reasonable provision IMO, for those citizens who do not have the same opportunities to avail of the type of education that they want for their children, is something that concerns me, and equality in education as far as I am concerned means that those children's educational needs are provided for in a suitable environment, that their parents or guardians are able to choose for them.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand your point/idea, but you have yet to present any idea as to how to get there

Yes I already covered that completely last time you brought it up, but thanks for repeating it again while ignoring the bulk of my post. If you want to stop discussion you can do so any time of course, but I am not buying you pretending it is has anything to do with what I am versed in, or not.

Certainly however one of the first steps is to address this issue of the "integrated curriculum" that we currently have. And to address the issue somehow of schools being able to discriminate at the level of ethos. And I see that the UN gave Ireland another hard grilling on the subject not so many hours ago. And people are more and more making the right noises on the issue.

I look forward to the day, would that I live to see it, where religion has nothing to do with our state schools at any level other than where they rightfully belong as elements in the likes of history, geography and literature class. I look forward to the day school admission is as blind to religion when considering applications as it should be to race, height, sex, or political affiliations of the child or it's parents. And I look forward most of all to the day teaching fantastical, unsubstantiated, stultifying nonsense to children comes out of no ones time or pocket other than the parents involved.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes I already covered that completely last time you brought it up, but thanks for repeating it again while ignoring the bulk of my post. If you want to stop discussion you can do so any time of course, but I am not buying you pretending it is has anything to do with what I am versed in, or not.

I really don't care what you believe or don't believe at this point tbh. I've already explained that I am not ignoring the bulk of your post, I simply see no need to address it, and as you have admitted already that you do not have sufficient knowledge to discuss the topic. I said fair enough, as I can discuss the subject of the thread, but I took your admission as an indication that it was pointless trying to continue the discussion if you were admitting that you haven't sufficient knowledge to do so.

Certainly however one of the first steps is to address this issue of the "integrated curriculum" that we currently have. And to address the issue somehow of schools being able to discriminate at the level of ethos. And I see that the UN gave Ireland another hard grilling on the subject not so many hours ago. And people are more and more making the right noises on the issue.

Politicians have been making similar noises since the mid-90's on this issue. If that's your impression of a hard grilling, is it any wonder there's been no movement on the issue with the non-committal attitude of politicians on moving the process forward. Perhaps you're unaware of recent events in this area with regard to the fact that in spite of all their political posturing, there is really no political will to change the education system.

nozzferrahhtoo

And I do not care if you care I was just pointing out I do not buy it given A) that you have ignored the parts of my post not even relevant to that along with several other posts on this thread and that as you know I am convinced this is your general ongoing MO which makes me less likely to buy it.

As for the grilling, the UN have been making a lot more noise on the issue in the past few meetings with them. Of course there is a lot more to do and say, which is why I did not say "making the right noises" but "more and more making the right noises". I think we are heading in the right direction and not only are the noises getting louder, but the media uptake of them appears to be too. And I always take THAT as a good sign, especially, as you say yourself, when "political will" is an issue. And we have relatively new advocacy groups (Like Atheist Ireland who were also at said UN meetings being heard) doing great work on the ground too. It is a general public-media-political pattern I have watched time and time again in my life - right up to the recent example of homosexual marriage - and it gives me hope.

Clearly I am not happy with the way it is. Clearly I am not happy with what is currently being done. But such discontent rarely stops me feeling optimistic where optimism appears warranted.

looksee

As I have said previously, there is already a system of state schools, the National Schools. They were set up by the state, but the government allowed the patronage system to be taken over by the churches so that the tail is wagging the dog. The patronage system does not mean - or should not mean - that the churches own the schools, and they should be reclaimed by the state, for the people - all the people.

If these schools were reclaimed and brought back into line with the growing need for inclusiveness and fairness in state business, with control by the state and local input by a board of management of parents and local people, it would go a long way to providing the secular education opportunities we are discussing. (If local people chose to elect the local PP on the board, that would be up to them, but he would only be an individual with no more authority than any other member of the board.)

Those schools that were founded and paid for by religious bodies would remain the property of, and under the control of the relevant religious bodies. Since these are, I think, pretty well exclusively in towns there would still be a choice of schools.

Each child is entitled to an education, and capitation grants should be paid by the state on a per child basis, rather than according to the ethos of the school. Maintenance of buildings and promotion of the ethos of schools owned by private bodies would be the responsibility of those bodies though.

Can anyone demonstrate any school currently that has received a direct subvention from a religious body in the past, say, 50 years? To my knowledge the only support towards schools has been from the state, with contributions from parents, which were for their children's education, rather than a donation to a church. Is there an 'Education Fund' operated by any of the churches to which schools can apply for support?

The special place of religion in teacher training should be removed; teachers with religious beliefs would be free to teach in the religious schools, or (with their religion remaining private to them) in the state schools. Teachers who did not wish to teach religion would be able to teach (without pretence) in state schools.

The references to religion in the Constitution need to be considerably diluted. The only reference should be that people are free to pursue whatever religious belief they wish at a personal level. At the moment it is not certain that the majority of people in the state are ready to declare for that change - though the SSM referendum showed that people are thinking more independently than might have been anticipated. I think that the current move for change needs to go on for another year or so before the referendum happens - I think the mood of the country would need to be finely judged. The results of the next census would probably go a long way to establishing whether we were ready for it.