Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

recedite - After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned, any more than after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them

Because the school was set up to provide religious education. This isn't chicken and egg stuff - religion definitely came first, education came second.

smacl wrote: »

At a time when everyone went to church at least once a week, it was illegal to be homosexual, the priests were feared, and we were sending pregnant daughters to the nuns. Ireland has thankfully moved on. We are not the same society that set these schools up.

You're both right. But my post was in response to smacl advocating the ET approach of having religious indoctrination after school. The ET schools did not exist in those days, and were not set up specifically to provide religious indoctrination.
So would smacl care to elaborate on why they should be considered the natural place for after-school religious indoctrination classes?

I'm going to anticipate your response here, and say; "Its because (some) parents want it."
Fair enough. But be aware the only reason they want it, is because they themselves attended RC schools in their youth, where they were conditioned into believing that it was the norm. Do you really want to perpetuate that cycle?

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

They are entitled not be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though, both legally and as a human right. Safehands' post is one I've heard on a number of occasions from other friends who are teachers.

They can legally be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though. I've heard Safehands posts a number of times too myself, and all it is - is speculation, begging the question.

I've interviewed plenty of teachers and you can spot the spoofers a mile off. Teachers are appointed with the interests of the school and the children in mind first and foremost. If someone feels they're being discriminated against because they don't want to do the job they're applying for, then that's their responsibility. It's going to be difficult to claim discrimination and be taken seriously after that.

recedite

tabby aspreme wrote: »

May have been the case in the past.
Three people now sit on the interview panel, school Principal , chair of BOM, and another Principal, usually from a nearby school.

OK, so in a parish school, if the chairman of the BOM is the local priest, and the two principals are "the right sort" of people who he has previously appointed to their positions in parish schools, how exactly is this "a non-religious appointment process" ?

Safehands

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're also leaving out the fact that any teacher applying for a position in the school would also have had to meet other criteria first, like registration with the teaching council, Garda vetting, an interview before a three person panel, approval of the nominated candidate by the Board of Management.

Of course they will all have met with these important criteria, all qualified to fill the position. Their religious beliefs will take precedence in many, many cases. If they are brilliant candidates but are luke warm in their religious beliefs and they are up against another candidate who is very religious, they will have little chance, in many instances. That is the reality!

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've interviewed plenty of teachers and you can spot the spoofers a mile off....
If someone feels they're being discriminated against because they don't want to do the job they're applying for, then that's their responsibility.

That's assuming the job involves the religious indoctrination of kids. Which is not something the state should be doing, so how exactly do you justify recruiting someone for the state payroll on this basis?

It goes back to the fundamental flaw in the whole system. Publicly funded schools should not be allowed to use any form of discrimination, and should not be using public funds for religious indoctrination either.

If you want to recruit teachers for a fully privately funded religious school, feel free to recruit them on whatever basis you like, and discriminate as much as you like.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

So would smacl care to elaborate on why they should be considered the natural place for after-school religious indoctrination classes?

Pragmatism. The current status quo includes a large population of religiously inclined families that want their kids to receive religious instruction, yet neither want nor are inclined to put any effort into providing for it. A change which does not intrude on this has the best possibility of actually happening. A change that drastically interferes with this is going to be vehemently opposed, to such an extent I'd consider it an idealistic fantasy. I don't care how other families raise their kids, once it is not affecting mine.

Safehands

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can legally be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though. I've heard Safehands posts a number of times too myself, and all it is - is speculation, begging the question.

No its not!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've interviewed plenty of teachers and you can spot the spoofers a mile off. Teachers are appointed with the interests of the school and the children in mind first and foremost.

Good for you! It's a pity other chairpersons don't take a leaf out of your book.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

OK, so in a parish school, if the chairman of the BOM is the local priest, and the two principals are "the right sort" of people who he has previously appointed to their positions in parish schools, how exactly is this "a non-religious appointment process" ?

Who claimed that it was a non-religious process in the first place? The appointment wouldn't solely be based upon the religious criteria is what people are saying, as opposed to silly suggestions about being members of Opus Dei and having no other merits will see a person hired over someone who is actually the "best educator". Not only is it a dumb comparison, but it ignores the fact that there are other criteria looked for in potential candidates besides their religious affiliation.

If they're the best candidate for the job, they're hired. If they're not the best candidate for the job, then why should they be hired?

One eyed Jack

Safehands wrote: »

No its not!

How is this not speculation and begging the question -

Safehands wrote: »

If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required.

It would depend upon a number of other assumptions being made in order to validate your hypothesis.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who claimed that it was a non-religious process in the first place? The appointment wouldn't solely be based upon the religious criteria is what people are saying, as opposed to silly suggestions about being members of Opus Dei and having no other merits will see a person hired over someone who is actually the "best educator". Not only is it a dumb comparison, but it ignores the fact that there are other criteria looked for in potential candidates besides their religious affiliation.

If they're the best candidate for the job, they're hired. If they're not the best candidate for the job, then why should they be hired?

unfortunately one of the requirements to measure their suitability is their willingness to engage in indoctrination...

It's not a problem for you. That's grand.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Pragmatism. The current status quo includes a large population of religiously inclined families that want their kids to receive religious instruction, yet neither want nor are inclined to put any effort into providing for it.

IMO the demand for after-school religion in ET schools comes exclusively from RC parents, many of whom are lapsed anyway. They don't want their child to miss out on the big communion day, but they can't be bothered arranging for the classes to be held after school at the local RC school, because that would involve extra work and an extra trip in the car.
Can you point to any other religious group asking for this after-school facility to be made available at an ET school? (a link, or even an anecdote)

As such, you are only perpetuating the idea that the RCC has the right to insert itself as the default religion for the provision of indoctrination in state schools. And the idea that primary schools are the natural place for religious indoctrination, even when not owned, or even run, by the particular religion involved.

Safehands

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is this not speculation and begging the question -

You want examples, here?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would depend upon a number of other assumptions being made in order to validate your hypothesis.

The assumption YOU must make is that chairmen are prepared to ignore the religious beliefs of candidates in favour of their educational qualifications and abilities.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they're the best candidate for the job, they're hired. If they're not the best candidate for the job, then why should they be hired?

They shouldn't but they are, specifically because of their stated religious beliefs. Religious discrimination is allowed for in section 37 of the employment act and occurs on an ongoing basis. Absolutely appalling behaviour IMHO, and glad to see that in some cases such as this, the schools get taken to task over it.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

unfortunately one of the requirements to measure their suitability is their willingness to engage in indoctrination...

It's not a problem for you. That's grand.

It's not a problem for most teachers I know either who are able to keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers.

Same as any other job then.

yoganinja

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a problem for most teachers I know either who are able to keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers.

Same as any other job then.

The fact that there has to be specific employment legislation to enforce this onus on employees specifically highlights that this imposition is not "same as any other job"

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a problem for most teachers I know either who are able to keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers.

Same as any other job then.

Not really though is it.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.. keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers...

Same as any other job then.

There are not many others on the state payroll who are required to act as agents for a particular religion. Even when it goes against their own conscience.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

They shouldn't but they are, specifically because of their stated religious beliefs. Religious discrimination is allowed for in section 37 of the employment act and occurs on an ongoing basis. Absolutely appalling behaviour IMHO, and glad to see that in some cases such as this, the schools get taken to task over it.

I don't think so. The reason that woman won her case is because the line of questioning in the interview didn't even fall within the scope of that allowed by Section 37. Nobody to my knowledge at least has ever been hired solely based upon their religious beliefs. If they aren't religious, but they're applying for a position in a religious ethos school, then they are responsible for that, not the interview panel or the BOM which may consider another candidate to be better suited to the position.

It's often been the case that a male teacher who happens to be very interested in physical education might be more suitable to a position than a female teacher who might be highly qualified in music and drama for example. It depends upon far more than just religious criteria, and you're going to have a hard time proving discrimination unless it's pretty blatant, as it was in the case above.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and you're going to have a hard time proving discrimination unless it's pretty blatant..

You realise that you are not exactly taking the high moral ground here? :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

So basically OEJ you're saying it's their tough titties for not being born catholics.

That it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one)

and you can't even begin to see how there might be anything at all not right with this?

tabby aspreme

recedite wrote: »

OK, so in a parish school, if the chairman of the BOM is the local priest, and the two principals are "the right sort" of people who he has previously appointed to their positions in parish schools, how exactly is this "a non-religious appointment process" ?

As I said earlier that may have been a scenario in the past . In our area there is one Parish Priest with 5 parishes which he administers over , there are 16 schools in the area and he is not involved in the running of any of them, move with the times

lawred2

that's ironic

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So basically OEJ you're saying it's their tough titties for not being born catholics.

That it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one)

and you can't even begin to see how there might be anything at all not right with this?

No, that's not basically anything like I'm saying at all. That's your interpretation, not mine, so I don't feel any particular need to defend your perspective.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

You realise that you are not exactly taking the high moral ground here? :pac:

I don't want the high moral ground at all though. That's the thing. I'm perfectly able to understand that other people have other ideals for their children than I would have for my children, but like smacl suggested above - as long as they don't try to impose their ideals on me or my children, we're all good.

When people try to impose their ideals on other people, they should expect backlash in equal and opposite measure. Newton's laws and all that jazz.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't want the high moral ground at all though. That's the thing. I'm perfectly able to understand that other people have other ideals for their children than I would have for my children, but like smacl suggested above - as long as they don't try to impose their ideals on me or my children, we're all good.

When people try to impose their ideals on other people, they should expect backlash in equal and opposite measure. Newton's laws and all that jazz.

:pac:

smacl

recedite wrote: »

As such, you are only perpetuating the idea that the RCC has the right to insert itself as the default religion for the provision of indoctrination in state schools. And the idea that primary schools are the natural place for religious indoctrination, even when not owned, or even run, by the particular religion involved.

Not so much the RCC as the families who want to send their little darlings to communion and confirmation who will object strongly to being inconvenienced in doing so. Like many atheists, I couldn't care less how other people choose to deal with religious instruction for their kids, once they don't involve mine. I've no interest in begrudging them use of school premises after hours on that basis, seems like a very small price to pay for a big step forwards in terms of secular education from where I'm sitting.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

:pac:

What? You think it shouldn't go both ways or something? Of course it does.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What? You think it shouldn't go both ways or something? Of course it does.

Discrimination shouldn't go in any direction.

The status quo is heavily discriminatory in only one direction. This isn't a case of all sides equally being affected.

Fairly sure you're aware of that.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When people try to impose their ideals on other people, they should expect backlash in equal and opposite measure. Newton's laws and all that jazz.

But this is exactly what is happening. The majority (or what purports to be the majority) has been and continues to impose their ideals on other people, and this discussion is the backlash that you mention.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Discrimination shouldn't go in any direction.

The status quo is heavily discriminatory in only one direction. This isn't a case of all sides equally being affected.

Fairly sure you're aware of that.

So which direction would you suggest it would be going in if there were an attempt to exclude religious orders from the patronage system?

I'm acutely aware of course that the current education system is heavily biased in the direction of the religious orders, but the non-religious patrons also receive proportionate funding on the basis of the numbers of pupils enrolled in their schools (an equally paltry amount, it has to be said, with some schools hoping to qualify for DEIS status so that they would receive extra supports!).

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So which direction would you suggest it would be going in if there were an attempt to exclude religious orders from the patronage system?

I'm acutely aware of course that the current education system is heavily biased in the direction of the religious orders, but the non-religious patrons also receive proportionate funding on the basis of the numbers of pupils enrolled in their schools (an equally paltry amount, it has to be said, with some schools hoping to qualify for DEIS status so that they would receive extra supports!).

Discrimination begets positive discrimination I'm afraid.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

But this is exactly what is happening. The majority (or what purports to be the majority) has been and continues to impose their ideals on other people, and this discussion is the backlash that you mention.

To be absolutely clear though - I think it's a good thing that discussion is happening, I would also like to see parents who do not want their children to attend schools with a religious ethos be accommodated. That means the State funding the building of new schools. This is something of course successive Governments don't want to do as they're quite aware it would be prohibitively expensive, so the best they can hope for is to outsource education through the patronage system. They know full well the religious orders aren't going to just hand over their properties to the State, nor should they have to without compensation. That means the majority of schools will remain under religious patronage for the foreseeable future.

This education bill won't do anything for parents who don't want to send their children to schools which have a religious ethos, and that's even if it passes.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Discrimination begets positive discrimination I'm afraid.

I see, discrimination is ok as long as it's in your favour.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see, discrimination is ok as long as it's in your favour.

That's not what I said.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be absolutely clear though - I think it's a good thing that discussion is happening, I would also like to see parents who do not want their children to attend schools with a religious ethos be accommodated. That means the State funding the building of new schools. This is something of course successive Governments don't want to do as they're quite aware it would be prohibitively expensive, so the best they can hope for is to outsource education through the patronage system. They know full well the religious orders aren't going to just hand over their properties to the State, nor should they have to without compensation. That means the majority of schools will remain under religious patronage for the foreseeable future.

This education bill won't do anything for parents who don't want to send their children to schools which have a religious ethos, and that's even if it passes.

Lets just say it once more. The majority of the schools 'owned' by the RC church were not built by them, are not funded by them, and while they are indeed patrons, it is only because either the government handed them over, or they manoeuvred their way in thanks to early governments with overly (RC) religious attitudes. All those could be handed back and there is no moral reason why there should be anything owed to the religious.

The few that were built and maintained by the RC church are theirs to keep, and they are entitled to whatever ethos suits them. Of course if they want state paid teachers then they cannot impose religious requirements on those teachers. If they want piety before qualifications then they should pay for them themselves. There could be a mixture in any school, so the church employs the faith teachers and the state pays the secular teachers. This applies to any faiths.

All children are entitled to a capitation paid for them, so that would apply regardless of the school, but if a religious grouping owns the school, they should maintain the structure.

The argument that the State should pay for duplicate schools - when they are already paying staff, maintenance and construction costs in existing schools - to accommodate the various beliefs and lack of them is ridiculous.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

That's not what I said.

You'll have to explain to me then the idea of positive discrimination that isn't discrimination in your favour seeing as your complaint is that the education system is heavily biased in favour of religious ethos schools.

If discrimination begets positive discrimination in order to redress what you see as an imbalance, how is that not discrimination which you would find acceptable?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Lets just say it once more. The majority of the schools 'owned' by the RC church were not built by them, are not funded by them, and while they are indeed patrons, it is only because either the government handed them over, or they manoeuvred their way in thanks to early governments with overly (RC) religious attitudes. All those could be handed back and there is no moral reason why there should be anything owed to the religious.

That would be fine if we were all operating with the same moral standards. However, legally, the State would be obliged to pay compensation to the religious orders for any properties handed over to the State.

The few that were built and maintained by the RC church are theirs to keep, and they are entitled to whatever ethos suits them. Of course if they want state paid teachers then they cannot impose religious requirements on those teachers. If they want piety before qualifications then they should pay for them themselves. There could be a mixture in any school, so the church employs the faith teachers and the state pays the secular teachers. This applies to any faiths.

The number of teachers in any school is also dependent upon the numbers of pupils in the school. The issue with expecting the schools to be able to pay for their own teachers is that many schools, be they religious or non-religious, simply wouldn't be able to fund teachers salaries without State aid. It's the children would lose out in that scenario.

I wouldn't mind being expected to fund my childs education if it meant I would pay less taxes and schools would be privatised receiving no State funding whatsoever, and hiring teachers based upon criteria that fit with the ethos of the school. I'm not sure that would go down too well with teachers though, the vast majority of whom could see themselves out of a job in the morning.

All children are entitled to a capitation paid for them, so that would apply regardless of the school, but if a religious grouping owns the school, they should maintain the structure.

Absolutely, and if a greater number of pupils are enrolled in a religious ethos school, then it stands to reason that school should receive more funding and more teachers than the school with a lesser number of pupils.

The argument that the State should pay for duplicate schools - when they are already paying staff, maintenance and construction costs in existing schools - to accommodate the various beliefs and lack of them is ridiculous.

Nobody is suggesting they pay for duplicate schools, but if the argument being put forward is that the majority of parents only enrol their children in religious ethos schools because there is no alternative, then surely it would stand to reason that building more schools which aren't duplicates of already existing schools would make sense, and parents would have their Constitutional rights respected by not being obliged through necessity to send their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience.

If the idea is as popular as people here have argued that it is, then why wouldn't they be petitioning the Government to build new schools rather than the half-baked idea of allowing the Government to offer a "solution" that nobody actually really wants?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not basically anything like I'm saying at all. That's your interpretation, not mine, so I don't feel any particular need to defend your perspective.

But you are saying that it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one).

It's all right for RCs (whether devout or cultural) you get exactly what you want and the state picks up the tab for you. It's beyond selfish.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But you are saying that it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one).

It's all right for RCs (whether devout or cultural) you get exactly what you want and the state picks up the tab for you. It's beyond selfish.

No. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if a person who is a qualified teacher wishes to apply for a position in a religious ethos school, they know full well first of all that they will require a religious certificate, and second of all, they know full well that they will be expected to teach a religious curriculum, regardless of their own personal beliefs or lack thereof.

If a person still chooses to study to become a teacher, and they still choose to obtain a religious certificate to teach in a religious ethos school, and they still know what is expected of them with regard to teaching a religious curriculum, then complaining that they don't want to teach a religious curriculum due to their own personal philosophy or world view, is not the schools problem - it's the individuals problem.

There's nothing to prohibit that person from being employed in a religious ethos school except themselves.

I've already stated btw that I wouldn't mind if the State were to pick up the tab for funding non-religious schools, or any other type of education for that matter, but I would strongly object to a system where I was expected to contribute to an education system which excluded an education provider on the grounds that they provide a particular type of education that I don't personally adhere to.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would be fine if we were all operating with the same moral standards. However, legally, the State would be obliged to pay compensation to the religious orders for any properties handed over to the State.

Why? Compensation for what?

The number of teachers in any school is also dependent upon the numbers of pupils in the school. The issue with expecting the schools to be able to pay for their own teachers is that many schools, be they religious or non-religious, simply wouldn't be able to fund teachers salaries without State aid. It's the children would lose out in that scenario.

No, the State does not pay for those teachers that religious school require for teaching religion. If they cannot pay for a religious teacher they use a state teacher who is not required to 'be' religious. Why should someone teaching reading, writing, maths, physical education have to have conforming religious beliefs?

I wouldn't mind being expected to fund my childs education if it meant I would pay less taxes and schools would be privatised receiving no State funding whatsoever, and hiring teachers based upon criteria that fit with the ethos of the school. I'm not sure that would go down too well with teachers though, the vast majority of whom could see themselves out of a job in the morning.

I don't see this scenario in my argument, why are you bringing it up?

Absolutely, and if a greater number of pupils are enrolled in a religious ethos school, then it stands to reason that school should receive more funding and more teachers than the school with a lesser number of pupils.

Where am I disputing this - other than the point that state supplied teachers should not be expected to teach religion.

Nobody is suggesting they pay for duplicate schools, but if the argument being put forward is that the majority of parents only enrol their children in religious ethos schools because there is no alternative, then surely it would stand to reason that building more schools which aren't duplicates of already existing schools would make sense, and parents would have their Constitutional rights respected by not being obliged through necessity to send their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience.

If the idea is as popular as people here have argued that it is, then why wouldn't they be petitioning the Government to build new schools rather than the half-baked idea of allowing the Government to offer a "solution" that nobody actually really wants?

? you are just repeating the argument that I dealt with. How is it reasonable to deal with this issue by building more schools? The state has already built and maintained and supplied teachers for the majority of the exisiting schools. My taxes are supporting your religious schools, your taxes will have to support these new and pointless duplicate schools.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Why? Compensation for what?

The State would have to compensate the religious orders for any properties they take from them.

No, the State does not pay for those teachers that religious school require for teaching religion. If they cannot pay for a religious teacher they use a state teacher who is not required to 'be' religious. Why should someone teaching reading, writing, maths, physical education have to have conforming religious beliefs?

I see, that's your proposal then. For a minute there I thought you were suggesting that the school pay for all teachers, hence why I said I wouldn't mind, but other people who couldn't afford to pay would lose out, and then their children wouldn't receive the type of education they want without them having to pay for it.

They shouldn't have to have confirming beliefs at all btw, but if they want to work in a school with a religious ethos, then they shouldn't be surprised that they would be expected to teach the children according to the curriculum. That's what their parents send the children there for, as opposed to another type of school where they would receive a different type of education.

? you are just repeating the argument that I dealt with. How is it reasonable to deal with this issue by building more schools? The state has already built and maintained and supplied teachers for the majority of the exisiting schools. My taxes are supporting your religious schools, your taxes will have to support these new and pointless duplicate schools.

You dismissed the point as ridiculous, so I thought it might help if I fleshed it out a bit. I've explained how it would help by building more schools, and according to all data available to us, the evidence suggests that parents want more choice in the types of education available to them. Equal access to education shouldn't mean equal access to the same type of education for everyone.

I don't have any issue with supporting what might seem to you like pointless duplicate schools. If that were the case, then why the necessity for other patron bodies at all? We'd simply be back at square one if parents were forced to send their children to State schools (not that they ever could force parents to send their children to State schools anyway).

So what you would have with your State run schools is simply a minority of schools that cater to a minority of the population, while the rest of the population could still avail of free primary education in an educational facility which they prefer... sure as hell not one run by the State anyway!

looksee

This discussion is a waste of time, it is just going round in circles.

Could you apply your attention to the point I made a few posts ago, and which you have continued to ignore:

The State would have to compensate the religious orders for any properties they take from them.

The RC church is patron of very large numbers of schools that they did not build, or maintain, or staff. In a few cases they contributed land in the mid 19C, and for that they could be compensated, but otherwise, what would the church be being compensated for? Though, given the amount of money owed by the church in compensation for abuse, it probably balances out.

There is one large new secondary school near me that was built by the state, on land that the state purchased, it is staffed and fitted out by the state - and was handed to the Church. What compensation would be payable there?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State would have to compensate the religious orders for any properties they take from them.

What about the €1.3 billion of compensation the state is owed by the church for institutional child abuse? Maybe a bit of quid pro quo is in order here, as has been suggested already by Bruton. That said, I do find it a bit odd as to why anyone would want an institution found guilty of decades of systematic child abuse to run a school in the first place. Or perhaps you think the vitriol that so many Irish people have for the RCC is unfounded?

nozzferrahhtoo

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Have to laugh at the hysteria with 'stone age beliefs'

Well yes in fairness a lot of the beliefs I hear from Christians would be more accurately placed in the Bronze age, not the Stone age. While some traverse then into the Iron age.

So sure, let us be accurate here at how we place archaic unsubstantiated nonsense in the right time frames

The_Valeyard wrote: »

and 'indoctrination'

Certainly a valid point of concern. When huge swaths of people are subscribing to unsubstantiated nonsense, and one factor in that seems to be that people tend to hold on to beliefs that are instilled in early childhood......... it certainly is a valid concern to worry about early childhood indoctrination into nonsense.

Why would it not be? Nothing laughably or hysterical about it. Especially when we observe what is going on in other countries where we can observe the schools and curriculum being used to validate religious doctrines, and sometimes attack or even outright ban the education of facts that contradict religions or make the religious feel uncomfortable. I think the battle lines are clear, and why they are there.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Such laughable nonsense. Some people here are full time anti Catholic keyboard warriors.

Well I am not sure you are in a place to admonish others in this regard given the laughable nonsense you yourself peddled in your past failure to link atheists to 21st Century Social and political atrocities. Anti atheist keyboard warriors do come up with some fantastical and egrigious doozies by times.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Seems Protestant and Muslim schools are excluded from this.

Excluded from what exactly? And how have you established that it "seems" that way?

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

. . . The RC church is patron of very large numbers of schools that they did not build, or maintain, or staff. In a few cases they contributed land in the mid 19C, and for that they could be compensated, but otherwise, what would the church be being compensated for? . . . There is one large new secondary school near me that was built by the state, on land that the state purchased, it is staffed and fitted out by the state - and was handed to the Church. What compensation would be payable there?

You'd need to look at the terms on which financial support was provided, and at other things like who exactly owns the land. And I don't know what you'd find if you looked at that.

But I don't think you can assert a general principle that, if the state provides financial support - even significant financial support - to some undertaking, it thereby acquires ownership of the property of that undertaking, or it acquires a right to assume ownership of the undertaking's property, even though nothing of the kind was proposed by the state or accepted by the undertaking at the time the financial support was provided. There are constitutional guarantees of property rights; the Supreme Court would go through that with a coach and four. If the state wants to acquire an interest in property by paying money, it needs to agree that with the owner at the time the money is paid.

smacl wrote: »

What about the €1.3 billion of compensation the state is owed by the church for institutional child abuse?

Your problem here is that the payment in respect of compensation is owed by a consortium of religious orders, while the national schools (with perhaps a few exceptions) are owned by the diocesan property trusts, a different bunch of lads. If A owes you money you can't seize the property of B purely on the basis that A and B are of the same religion, or share some other characteristic. You have to produce some rule of law or point to some relationship between them which works to make B liable for A's debts/obligations.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your problem here is that the payment in respect of compensation is owed by a consortium of religious orders, while the national schools (with perhaps a few exceptions) are owned by the diocesan property trusts, a different bunch of lads. If A owes you money you can't seize the property of B purely on the basis that A and B are of the same religion, or share some other characteristic. You have to produce some rule of law or point to some relationship between them which works to make B liable for A's debts/obligations.

Would this be as a result of the Christian brothers moving €400 million (97 schools) into a trust fund perhaps? Maybe we should just send the Pope an invoice, him being the main man in this realm so to speak.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Would this be as a result of the Christian brothers moving €400 million (97 schools) into a trust fund perhaps?

Not, it wouldn't. The national schools have always been largely diocesan operations, always held as diocesan property, and traditionally with the parish priest as manager. There'd be a small number held by various religious congregations but, even then, not necessarily the congregations who are part of the consortium signed up to the redress compensation deal.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see, that's your proposal then.

People have run many proposals past you and others on the forum in the past but you have simply dodged them, usually by just shouting out words like "nonsense" and "That proposal would give everyone a sub standard education" without explaining WHY it is nonsense or HOW such a proposal would give a sub standard education.

However I think what a lot of people "propose" on this forum is pretty clear........ that we move as quickly and coherently towards a system where we have a curriculum to be taught and BEING taught that is not based on religion and has an enrollment process to it that is entirely blind to the religion of the students (or their parents or their teachers) applying to access it or teach it.

Then people's hobbies, be they martial arts, yoga, Catholicism, or whatever can be appended outside this core curriculum, and even facilitated by those facilities, in a modular after school system. Much the same way as people used to go to my secondary school after the school day to attend courses on Martial Arts, yoga, creative writing, arts and so forth.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

This discussion is a waste of time, it is just going round in circles.

Could you apply your attention to the point I made a few posts ago, and which you have continued to ignore:


The RC church is patron of very large numbers of schools that they did not build, or maintain, or staff. In a few cases they contributed land in the mid 19C, and for that they could be compensated, but otherwise, what would the church be being compensated for? Though, given the amount of money owed by the church in compensation for abuse, it probably balances out.

There is one large new secondary school near me that was built by the state, on land that the state purchased, it is staffed and fitted out by the state - and was handed to the Church. What compensation would be payable there?

I'm not ignoring your points, I thought at least it had been established by now that the State would have to compensate the religious orders for what properties they would want to acquire -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

2.6°: The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

What about the €1.3 billion of compensation the state is owed by the church for institutional child abuse? Maybe a bit of quid pro quo is in order here, as has been suggested already by Bruton. That said, I do find it a bit odd as to why anyone would want an institution found guilty of decades of systematic child abuse to run a school in the first place. Or perhaps you think the vitriol that so many Irish people have for the RCC is unfounded?

There won't be any quid pro quo, and Bruton knows it. What's actually unfounded and what would be wrong IMO would be to judge people guilty by association. If other people want to assume people are guilty by association, that's their prerogative.