I don't want to stay

cnocbui

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...
The onus is on people to elect politicians who will commit to representing their interests, as that is the essence of democracy tbh.

I voted for Enda because he made a pretense that he would do something about the compulsory teaching of Irish in schools. Neither you nor I have ever lived in a democracy. The Swiss come close.

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The onus is on people to elect politicians who will commit to representing their interests, as that is the essence of democracy, rather than expect other people should remain silent and cowtow to a regime in which their interests are ignored. Why anyone would expect someone else to do that is beyond me tbh.

Because some rights are already there but not enacted. Every child should have right to education regardless weather they've been baptized. It's not good enough to tell people to vote for someone who might enact that. It's a basic right. Besides I would find it frustrating to vote for some left wing fruitcake or labour to achieve that when I would be voting against my interest in other areas line economy (I can't vote anyway so it's immaterial anyway).

That being said, there are different types of western democracies but what is common to all of them is than one has the right to vote regardless of their religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation and so on. So unless some want to enact some sort of secular dictatorship Catholics will have just as much of a right express opinions as anyone else.

magicbastarder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's how in spite of the influence of the Church's influence, marriage equality was passed, because the Church did not have as much influence on society in the area of marriage as it does in education.

however, this is an example - however welcome the result was - which makes me uneasy, because it helped cement the idea that the opinions of the majority have legitimacy in deciding on the rights of a minority.

One eyed Jack

meeeeh wrote: »

Because some rights are already there but not enacted. Every child should have right to education regardless weather they've been baptized. It's not good enough to tell people to vote for someone who might enact that. It's a basic right. Besides I would find it frustrating to vote for some left wing fruitcake or labour to achieve that when I would be voting against my interest in other areas line economy (I can't vote anyway so it's immaterial anyway).

That being said, there are different types of western democracies but what is common to all of them is than one has the right to vote regardless of their religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation and so on. So unless some want to enact some sort of secular dictatorship Catholics will have just as much of a right express opinions as anyone else.

The rest of your post I completely agree with, but I just wanted to point out the part in bold there - nobody has to vote for that right to be enacted. It's one of the fundamental rights of the Irish Constitution. What isn't a fundamental right however, is the perceived right that some people think they have in relation to an automatic entitlement to have their child enrolled in a specific school of their choosing. Nobody, regardless of their religious beliefs or none, has that right.

One eyed Jack

magicbastarder wrote: »

however, this is an example - however welcome the result was - which makes me uneasy, because it helped cement the idea that the opinions of the majority have legitimacy in deciding on the rights of a minority.

That depends on what way you look at the result of the marriage referendum, and there are a few ways to look at it. The above is just one way. Another way of looking at it is that because the change was cemented in the Irish Constitution, it applies to all citizens equally, regardless of their sex. Another way to look at it is that while liberal types were two-fingering crusty conservatives, they had just argued their way into the oldest, most conservative social institution since the dawn of civilisation. Another way to look at it is that about a third of the electorate didn't get what they wanted in spite of having been represented (albeit piss poor representation tbf :pac:), so at least now they know they're in a minority. They're attempting all sorts of ways to change that, but the result of the marriage referendum gave them the smack in the face they needed to wake up and cop on, so to speak, and that's not a bad thing sometimes!

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The rest of your post I completely agree with, but I just wanted to point out the part in bold there - nobody has to vote for that right to be enacted. It's one of the fundamental rights of the Irish Constitution. What isn't a fundamental right however, is the perceived right that some people think they have in relation to an automatic entitlement to have their child enrolled in a specific school of their choosing. Nobody, regardless of their religious beliefs or none, has that right.

Perhaps not, but I think the first question many of us will be asking the would be TDs knocking on our doors in the coming weeks is what they are going to do about religious discrimination in school enrolment policies for state funded schools? Looking at the ongoing erosion of the primacy of religion in schools, e.g. the dumping of rule 68, I can't see many politicians seeing many votes in upholding the status quo, whereas the reverse will most likely be a popular vote getter which doesn't demand budget.

looksee

One eyed Jack:

Because we live in a democracy, the Church Hierarchy have as much right to influence those laws as any other lobby group have to influence the laws, and your assertion that they should have no voice and no representation is the opposite of a democracy.

How many other lobby groups get to do their influencing on small and impressionable children in an environment where they might expect the truth and be able to trust what they are told though?

How many other lobby groups have the state and the constitution firmly on their 'side'?

How many other lobby groups have the afterlife and people's eternal souls as leverage?

The church can have all the voice it wants in its own churches, that is democracy.

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The rest of your post I completely agree with, but I just wanted to point out the part in bold there - nobody has to vote for that right to be enacted. It's one of the fundamental rights of the Irish Constitution. What isn't a fundamental right however, is the perceived right that some people think they have in relation to an automatic entitlement to have their child enrolled in a specific school of their choosing. Nobody, regardless of their religious beliefs or none, has that right.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and spirit of the law. If someone can't get place in local schools and has to drive for an hour just to get kids into school then you can't claim they are not discrinated against.

And sometimes people just prefer to do what is convenient than what is right

meeeeh

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps not, but I think the first question many of us will be asking the would be TDs knocking on our doors in the coming weeks is what they are going to do about religious discrimination in school enrolment policies for state funded schools? Looking at the ongoing erosion of the primacy of religion in schools, e.g. the dumping of rule 68, I can't see many politicians seeing many votes in upholding the status quo, whereas the reverse will most likely be a popular vote getter which doesn't demand budget.

That's very naive view. Firstly it won't be cheap, there is an option of forced nationalisation but a lot of school buildings are on church grounds and in church ownership. so unless you want something the communist dictatorships did , there will be a sizable bill. Good luck competing for funds with health. It will be messy because parents who have kids in school now might not agree (as it's happening at the moment with finding the schools that are prepared to loose church patronage). And finally the group that most likely votes are OAPs. I wouldn't say education is a pressing subject for them. This is a lot more of an urban, middle class issue, it doesn't overly feature in rural areas and good luck for getting enough votes. At best the baptism rule will be scrapped and few more ET schools open but if anything more happens in the next Dail, I'll eat my nice fluffy hat. You certainly won't get abortion referendum and education overhaul in the same Dail term.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

One eyed Jack:

How many other lobby groups get to do their influencing on small and impressionable children in an environment where they might expect the truth and be able to trust what they are told though?

As many lobby groups as their parents allow to have access to their children? That's a bit of a 'how long is a piece of string?' question. The answer is probably in the hundreds, from the time the child is born to the time time the child is no longer considered a minor who does not need their parents or guardians to act on their behalf in their best interests.

How many organisations and lobby groups and environments impressionable children are exposed to is entirely dependent upon their parents wishes. "The more the better" I say, other people disagree. I say it teaches them to challenge their preconceived ideas about people, other people disagree.

How many other lobby groups have the state and the constitution firmly on their 'side'?

Again, hundreds! Even if you wanted to narrow that down specifically to education, there are hundreds of lobby groups petitioning and advocating for recognition on behalf of their identifying social group, who have both the State, and the Constitution on their side.

How many other lobby groups have the afterlife and people's eternal souls as leverage?

I will admit, the religious cornered the market on that score alright. It's hardly leverage if you're not religious though? It's about as valuable as magic beans.

The church can have all the voice it wants in its own churches, that is democracy.

The Church is people (less soylent green, and more specifically it's adherents), therefore the Church already has a say, it doesn't need anyone's permission to have a say. Ensuring everyone in society has a say though, is the goal of democracy, and if you're not going to speak up, there's not much point in complaining that other people shouldn't be allowed to! That's not democracy.

looksee

Heavens OEJ, you could have an entire strawman convention!

cnocbui

looksee wrote: »

Heavens OEJ, you could have an entire strawman convention!

Perhaps he's making up for lost time?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...

Anyhow, the reason I was reluctant to comment up until now...

One eyed Jack

cnocbui wrote: »

Perhaps he's making up for lost time?

That sentence in context, gave exactly the reason why I was reluctant to comment -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyhow, the reason I was reluctant to comment up until now is because something like a decision of this magnitude, one that affects your whole family Kiwi, isn't something that you should ever, ever ask the Internet for their opinions tbh.

And that's the thing that some advocates for secular education don't want to acknowledge, is that the reality is that other parents have that choice, and those parents will make choices for their children that they believe are in their children's best interests.

Other people are free to disagree, but in order for those people to further their own agenda, they have to come up with a compelling argument that they can present to adults, rather than resorting to childish mockery. Is that really the alternative?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The laws regarding the issues you were referring to are the same for everyone, regardless of whether they are religious or not. The whole "privacy of people's bedrooms" stuff is nonsense.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

That's not how laws are applied, and they're not made nor passed with any interest in what anyone gets up to in their bedroom.

Really? What do you expect the effect of a law banning contraception (or anal sex between males) to be?

They're made for the benefit of a society, and apply to everyone in that society equally, so of course any laws would affect their welfare, not because of their religion, but because they are citizens of the State, who must abide by those laws.

How did banning contraception because of catholic doctrine 'benefit society' exactly??

You continue to throw these ridiculous claims out there with not a shred of evidence or argument to back them up.

Because we live in a democracy, the Church Hierarchy have as much right to influence those laws as any other lobby group have to influence the laws, and your assertion that they should have no voice and no representation is the opposite of a democracy. You want to silence dissent. That is an affront to democracy. If your voice was silenced and you had no representation, could you still claim you live in a democracy?

Did you fail to read the post immediately after the one you replied to? No, because you replied to that one too. You know, the one where I said bishops, the same. They should have no more influence than you or I, but that's not the case - yet.

Nowhere did I say anyone should be silenced.

Misrepresenting posters is the lowest debating tactic of the low.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're arguing as though the way things should be, is the way they are now.

No, I was describing how things should be. That is quite clear.

Takes some absence of mind then to be mocking what you consider other people's fantasy ideas.

From evasion, to misrepresentation, you have now moved onto abuse.

They don't have any more rights than anyone else. I never argued that they didn't have more influence. They do, by virtue of their numbers, a fact which you seem to want to ignore.

You know well that numbers is not the case, otherwise how was last May's vote lost?

Their influence is largely because of historical reasons. Nobody would seek to implement a system of >90% RCC control of schools if it didn't already exist. Nobody would put language in the constitution demanding homage to 'almighty god' if it wasn't already there.

smacl

meeeeh wrote: »

That's very naive view. Firstly it won't be cheap, there is an option of forced nationalisation but a lot of school buildings are on church grounds and in church ownership. It will be messy because parents who have kids in school now might not agree (as it's happening at the moment with finding the schools that are prepared to loose church patronage). And finally the group that most likely votes are OAPs. I wouldn't say education is a pressing subject for them. This is a lot more of an urban, middle class issue, it doesn't overly feature in rural areas and good luck for getting enough votes. At best the baptism rule will be scrapped and few more ET schools open but if anything more happens in the next Dail, I'll eat my nice fluffy hat. You certainly won't get abortion referendum and education overhaul in the same Dail term.

Simply changing the enrolment to outlaw discriminatory practise wouldn't have any attendant cost other than legislative, which was all my previous post covered. Tasty I'm sure as it is, your fluffy hat is possibly safe enough for the next Dail, though in addition to more ET schools and scrapping the baptismal cert / discriminatory enrolment requirements, I'd also expect at least a few divestments of patronage over the period.

meeeeh

smacl wrote: »

Simply changing the enrolment to outlaw discriminatory practise wouldn't have any attendant cost other than legislative, which was all my previous post covered. Tasty I'm sure as it is, your fluffy hat is possibly safe enough for the next Dail, though in addition to more ET schools and scrapping the baptismal cert / discriminatory enrolment requirements, I'd also expect at least a few divestments of patronage over the period.

oh I completely agree but I very much doubt it will 've a big vote getter. At best it will push an odd labour TD over the line. As far as I know very little was done on divestment up to date even though about twenty locations were agreed irc.

The Archbishop’s impatience is not limited to those within the Church – last April he spoke of how pluralism in patronage had run up against opposition at local level, including from local political representatives, including some from the Labour Party,
To date just one Catholic school has been divested to a non-religious patron. In March last year a deal was agreed with the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, which owns the former Christian Brothers school at Basin Lane, Dublin, to lease it to the Department of Education for 10 years for use by Educate Together. But it is already in trouble.
Last August it emerged the lease contains conditions which limit the school’s ability to expand and which may threaten its viability. The Church has also surrendered Burren national school in Castlebar. It closed over 20 years ago and requires substantial refurbishment.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/analysis-divestment-of-catholic-schools-remains-insignificant-1.2423468

My biggest hope is that all schools will be required to stick to the same enrolment policies as those open after 2011. But this is Labour's project and it probably very much depends weather they are in government. Just looking at the polling numbers it seems to me there are other topics that will feature more prominently on the agenda. And for everything to be more fun the curriculum changes probably have to be agreed with unions. For me a clean sweep would be needed but I just don't believe there is political will for it.

smacl

meeeeh wrote: »

For me a clean sweep would be needed but I just don't believe there is political will for it.

My feeling is that the next government will be a minority one with be a hotch-potch of conflicting interests and a limited ability to achieve much. That said, I don't see it surviving a full term in office either, sad but there you go. At best, there is a strong taste for social justice and a rejection of the old order withing the electorate which can't be good for the RCC.

At the same time, I'd imagine the promotion of the Catholic ethos and religious instruction in our schools will continue to die a death of a thousand cuts. Even now the principal argument for it seems to be along the lines of 'sure what harm does it?' rather than suggesting anything positive or beneficial. Couple that with collapsing church attendance rates and an attitude among the younger generation towards the clergy that lies somewhere between indifference and antipathy, and this can really only go one way. How long it takes will probably be measured in generations rather than Dail terms.