Now is the time to take control of schools away from the church

Mutant z

The time has come to take control of schools away from the church the fact that over 90% of schools in this country are under the control of the catholic church is baffling considering Ireland is now a largely irreligious country which has moved away from the catholic church so why is its ethos still being forced on the majority of the population. The fact is the days when the church ruled the roost in this country is thankfully over so why isnt it being reflected in state institutions which are by and large still under the control and influence of the RCC. Religion should be an entirely private matter not forcing its own ethos and morality over the education system so its time to end the religious dominance over schools once and for all.

_Brian

I can’t understand why your baffled. It’s quite simple really.

As the Irish state developed the church stepped in and got involved in developing schools, it shouldered much of the cost of school infrastructure. To this day they in many cases still retain ownership of the land schools are built on, the schools themselves are generally the property of the state.

It’s often cited as the reason that the church retain some degree of control in schools - they are the site owners after all.

I would suggest the solution is CPO, we regularly see farmers land being CPO’d for public infrastructure developments. In the same way these sites could be forcibly purchased from the church which would finally break any hold they have over schools.

Truly there was a missed opportunity under the FF government when settlement for abuse cases was reached, a clause to include turning these lands over to the state should have been included and a cost neutral solution was missed.

kneemos

The state sets the curriculum.
They haven't been willing to stir the pot in regards to sex and religious education.

Subcomandante Marcos

_Brian wrote: »

I can’t understand why your baffled. It’s quite simple really.

As the Irish state developed the church stepped in and got involved in developing schools, it shouldered much of the cost of school infrastructure. To this day they in many cases still retain ownership of the land schools are built on, the schools themselves are generally the property of the state.

It’s often cited as the reason that the church retain some degree of control in schools - they are the site owners after all.

I would suggest the solution is CPO, we regularly see farmers land being CPO’d for public infrastructure developments. In the same way these sites could be forcibly purchased from the church which would finally break any hold they have over schools.

Truly there was a missed opportunity under the FF government when settlement for abuse cases was reached, a clause to include turning these lands over to the state should have been included and a cost neutral solution was missed.

Most of the land used for school building was given to the church in trust for the provision of schools.

The church owes the state hundreds of millions in redress for the clerical abuse settlements. Just size the land national and secondary schools are built on and tell them we'll take the remainder in installments until they finally repay the victims of their abuse.

Graces7

There are many who want their children educated in a Catholic school

google "ceist"

Subcomandante Marcos

Graces7 wrote: »

There are many who want their children educated in a Catholic school

google "ceist"

Then let them establish private schools for that purpose.

The state shouldn't be funding the religious indoctrination of children and it certainly shouldn't be done in time that is being wasted in school and could be used for something that is genuinely useful like languages, math, arts, stem subjects or even sport.

If people want a "choice" then give them the choice, right now we have a church controlled monopoly on primary and secondary education in this country and it's a disgrace in 2018.

kneemos

Graces7 wrote: »

There are many who want their children educated in a Catholic school

google "ceist"

These people are well able to deliver their own religious education.

This is the kind of thing that happens in a ceist school.

https://extra.ie/2017/11/05/news/irish-news/nun-blocks-unmarried-mothers-promotion

_Brian

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Most of the land used for school building was given to the church in trust for the provision of schools.

The church owes the state hundreds of millions in redress for the clerical abuse settlements. Just size the land national and secondary schools are built on and tell them we'll take the remainder in installments until they finally repay the victims of their abuse.

That deal is done and dusted, a bad deal but we are bound to it. It was a terrible missed opportunity.

The state just can’t start seize land, it must operate within set rules. CPO is really the best option.

Zebra3

Love that line that the RC Church “stepped in” to help with education like it was some sort of benevolent move.

Access to kids to rape them and indoctrinate them.

Subcomandante Marcos

_Brian wrote: »

That deal is done and dusted, a bad deal but we are bound to it. It was a terrible missed opportunity.

The state just can’t start seize land, it must operate within set rules. CPO is really the best option.

If the religious orders have any sort of honour or shame they'd hand over the lands.

Atoms for Peace

Primary is quite fair and egalitarian here compared to other Anglo sphere nations, I really hope it stays that way it's much more important than who owns the building.

Sonics2k

Graces7 wrote: »

There are many who want their children educated in a Catholic school

google "ceist"

By all means, educate your children in Catholic schools.

However, there should be a separation of Church and State, so the State (and taxpayer) should not fund religious ethos schools.

Mrs OBumble

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Then let them establish private schools for that purpose.

The church shouldn't be funding the religious indoctrination of children and it certainly shouldn't be done in time that is being wasted in school and could be used for something that is genuinely useful like languages, math, arts, stem subjects or even sport.

If people want a "choice" then give them the choice, right now we have a church controlled monopoly on primary and secondary education in this country and it's a disgrace in 2018.

They already have formed their own school's.

It's atheist (sic) Ireland that hasn't bothered to pull its finger out of it's arse and set up secular schools.

So the catholic schools have to keep admitting non-Cstholic kids.

Donald Trump

Sonics2k wrote: »

By all means, educate your children in Catholic schools.

However, there should be a separation of Church and State, so the State (and taxpayer) should not fund religious ethos schools.

That's complete discrimination.


The state provides a per capita grant for each child of school going age. This grant follows the child



If there are sufficient children attending an institution, the state will pay teaching salaries within limits - of course there are requirements as regards standards and curriculum etc.


So the system is open and transparent from that end.


If you don't want to support the continuation of your local religious school then don't send your child there. It isn't a conspiracy

One eyed Jack

Sonics2k wrote: »

By all means, educate your children in Catholic schools.

However, there should be a separation of Church and State, so the State (and taxpayer) should not fund religious ethos schools.

There should absolutely be a separation of Church and State, but the problem with that is that the State simply cannot afford to build it's own schools, so it funds the education of children by outsourcing it through the patronage system. The Catholic Bishops of Ireland just happen to be the largest patron provider of education. It's up to people who want a secular education for their children to campaign for that, because the Government certainly has no intention of getting rid of the patronage system.

Donald Trump

_Brian wrote: »

That deal is done and dusted, a bad deal but we are bound to it. It was a terrible missed opportunity.

The state just can’t start seize land, it must operate within set rules. CPO is really the best option.

What is being described is not CPO but nationalization.

Berserker

Mutant z wrote: »

The time has come to take control of schools away from the church the fact that over 90% of schools in this country are under the control of the catholic church is baffling considering Ireland is now a largely irreligious country which has moved away from the catholic church so why is its ethos still being forced on the majority of the population.

What makes you say that the RoI is an irreligious country? 90% of the population are aligned to a religion, according to the CSO.

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Most of the land used for school building was given to the church in trust for the provision of schools.

The church owes the state hundreds of millions in redress for the clerical abuse settlements.

It was the vision of the founding fathers of the Irish Republic for it to be a Roman Catholic only country. The state was a strong enabler and supporter of the Roman Catholic church back then. The Irish state would have to buy that land back from the church. The state can't go around taking back land.

kneemos

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's complete discrimination.


The state provides a per capita grant for each child of school going age. This grant follows the child



If there are sufficient children attending an institution, the state will pay teaching salaries within limits - of course there are requirements as regards standards and curriculum etc.


So the system is open and transparent from that end.


If you don't want to support the continuation of your local religious school then don't send your child there. It isn't a conspiracy

No choice in most areas.

Donald Trump

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There should absolutely be a separation of Church and State, but the problem with that is that the State simply cannot afford to build it's own schools, so it funds the education of children by outsourcing it through the patronage system. The Catholic Bishops of Ireland just happen to be the largest patron provider of education. It's up to people who want a secular education for their children to campaign for that, because the Government certainly has no intention of getting rid of the patronage system.

It's up to them to put their money where their mouth is. Fundraise and build their own schools.

Donald Trump

kneemos wrote: »

No choice in most areas.

No, there is always a choice.


What you mean is that there is no alternate option that others have put on your plate with no need for any effort on your own part.


Faced with the option between

A) hypocritically sending their kids to a school and simultaneously ungraciously belittling the institution and people who put in the effort to provide it, and

doing work to set up an alternative
well everyone picks "A". which is why we have the discussion. The parents 20 years ago didn't put in the effort, the parents 10 years ago didn't, current ones won't and in 10 years they won't. So the moaning and whining can continue.

kneemos

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's up to them to put their money where their mouth is. Fundraise and build their own schools.

Nope. It's the states responsibility to provide an education for everyone.

Donald Trump

kneemos wrote: »

Nope. It's the states responsibility to provide an education for everyone.

Yes, but not an individualized plan for every single person.


So they will pay the teachers of your local school. give then capitation grants and ensure that there are transport options to your nearest school.


They aren't obligated to build and staff new different customized school for every parent who thinks their kid is special of doesn't like the existing school

Subcomandante Marcos

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They already have formed their own school's.

It's atheist (sic) Ireland that hasn't bothered to pull its finger out of it's arse and set up secular schools.

So the catholic schools have to keep admitting non-Cstholic kids.

Way to completely ignore reality...

_Brian

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

If the religious orders have any sort of honour or shame they'd hand over the lands.

I agree completely. But it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

Nope. It's the states responsibility to provide an education for everyone.

Nope, it's the States responsibility to provide for education. It's parents responsibility to ensure that their children are educated. The State is under no obligation to provide the type of education that parents want for their children, and parents are under no obligation to enrol their children in a school which is incongruent with their values, philosophy, beliefs or world view.

_Brian

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is being described is not CPO but nationalization.

No, the state already owns the buildings, pays the teachers, pays for heating and light. In nearly all cases the last hold the church have is owning the sites themselves. I can be certain of this in half a dozen sxchooks that I deal with.

The only way out that won’t cause a legal ****tstorm is to CPO the lands from them in the national interest of separating church and state.

Cost is the big factor though as for the process to be legal and withstand challenge a fair market price would need to be paid - on many cases that would be a problem.

kneemos

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes, but not an individualized plan for every single person.


So they will pay the teachers of your local school. give then capitation grants and ensure that there are transport options to your nearest school.


They aren't obligated to build and staff new different customized school for every parent who thinks their kid is special of doesn't like the existing school

No,but if they're providing religious education it should be universal.

kneemos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, it's the States responsibility to provide for education. It's parents responsibility to ensure that their children are educated. The State is under no obligation to provide the type of education that parents want for their children, and parents are under no obligation to enrol their children in a school which is incongruent with their values, philosophy, beliefs or world view.

So remove religious education entirely?


It is the states responsibility to ensure your child is educated by the way. Try not educating them and the authorities will be on your case.

Sonics2k

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's complete discrimination.

I don't think you know what discrimination means

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you don't want to support the continuation of your local religious school then don't send your child there. It isn't a conspiracy

My children live in a very small town in Limerick, there is one primary school. Their mother is an atheist and I am too. They have no choice but to attend a Catholic Primary school, where my son was taught his Hail Mary's before being taught basic math.

This was only 3 years ago.

One eyed Jack

Donald Trump wrote: »

It's up to them to put their money where their mouth is. Fundraise and build their own schools.

Well I personally don't have any issue with anyone campaigning for the State to fund the provision of schools for those people that want them. They're entitled to do that much at least. We all pay taxes and it's the Government decides how the money it receives is distributed.

That's why I never get this argument put forward by the OP either that Catholics should set up their own schools and fund them privately without funding from the State. Why should they when the State is perfectly willing to use their taxes to fund the current system?

Grayson

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you don't want to support the continuation of your local religious school then don't send your child there. It isn't a conspiracy

I believe something like 60% of people don't live within commutable distance of a non catholic school. And remember something like 92% of national schools are catholic. So there's simply a lack of space in non catholic schools. The church dominates the market so much that there's simply no option but to send your child to a catholic national school.

And I can't remember 100% but I believe the educate together and gaelscoils are christian too. So really it's impossible for most people to send their child to a non religious school.

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

So remove religious education entirely?

Because it doesn't suit you? No thanks.

It is the states responsibility to ensure your child is educated by the way. Try not educating them and the authorities will be on your case.

Yes, the State will ensure that parents are ensuring their children are receiving a minimum standard of education. It's up to the parents to provide that education if they don't want to enrol their children in any educational institution.

Grayson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it doesn't suit you? No thanks.

There's a strawman. Did they ever say that it was because it suited them?

How about because the state should not be involved in the indoctination of young children. Teach a religious class where children learn about all religions and christianity gets the same amount of time of any other religion, but don't teach catholic catechism. And certainly don't spend time preparing kids for communion, confessions and confirmations.That's . all private religious stuff and should be done on the parents own time.

_Brian

I really don’t see the problem.

Our kids both went to catholic schools, we’d be lapsed a-la-carte Catholics I suppose.
Yes they got sacraments, but they know the score in that religion is more an idea than a factual recount of history, more a structure for moral guidance than a big man in a white dress floating on a cloud that will strike you down if you sin. We have these conversations openly with them and they understand.

It’s not all or nothing, there is a middle ground you can set your kids on that allows them attend any school and still come out with a level view of the world.

One eyed Jack

_Brian wrote: »

No, the state already owns the buildings, pays the teachers, pays for heating and light. In nearly all cases the last hold the church have is owning the sites themselves. I can be certain of this in half a dozen sxchooks that I deal with.

The only way out that won’t cause a legal ****tstorm is to CPO the lands from them in the national interest of separating church and state.

Cost is the big factor though as for the process to be legal and withstand challenge a fair market price would need to be paid - on many cases that would be a problem.

CPO wouldn't apply to property owned by religious orders. It would be a legal shìtstorm because it would be regarded as unconstitutional. Governments would have attempted a CPO a long time ago if they thought they could get away with it, which is why they've gone down the painfully slow divestment route instead. It's not the Church are stalling the divestment process either, but rather it's parents who simply don't want it.

One eyed Jack

Grayson wrote: »

There's a strawman. Did they ever say that it was because it suited them?

How about because the state should not be involved in the indoctination of young children. Teach a religious class where children learn about all religions and christianity gets the same amount of time of any other religion, but don't teach catholic catechism. And certainly don't spend time preparing kids for communion, confessions and confirmations.That's . all private religious stuff and should be done on the parents own time.

It's not a strawman, that's essentially what it comes down to, even in your own post. That's nothing I haven't heard before that doesn't simply boil down to - it doesn't suit you.

However, the current system suits me, so why would I want it to change?

You say that the State shouldn't be involved in the indoctrination of children, but that's a decision I think should be left to the parents to avail of the type of education they want for their children which is congruent with their values and world views. I want my child taught the Catholic catechism and educated according to the Catholic ethos.

Part of providing that education involves preparation for the sacraments, and it's done both at home and in school. You may not regard freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom to manifest ones religion as particularly important fundamental human rights granted to all citizens, but the State does.

tabby aspreme

Apart from the hypothetical cost of cpo'ing all the schools that are currently divested , there would also be the massive ongoing cost of the extra staff that the Department / ETBs would need to manage the schools, work that is currently being done by Boards of management for free.

_Brian

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Apart from the hypothetical cost of cpo'ing all the schools that are currently divested , there would also be the massive ongoing cost of the extra staff that the Department / ETBs would need to manage the schools, work that is currently being done by Boards of management for free.

I reason that boards couldn’t continue to do voluntary work, just different people.

Auguste Comte

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think you know what discrimination means




My children live in a very small town in Limerick, there is one primary school. Their mother is an atheist and I am too. They have no choice but to attend a Catholic Primary school, where my son was taught his Hail Mary's before being taught basic math.

This was only 3 years ago.

This is why the Catholic Church will hang on to the education system for as long as they can. Firstly the pressure on parents to have their kids christened although they otherwise would never darken the door of a church. This is very useful to the church and the likes of the iona institute as they get to claim them all as practicing members when they are lobbying politicians for whatever they want.

They have to get kids young to get into their heads with their bull that there is this god who really loves YOU but if you piss him off he will send you to a firey pit to burn for all eternity. Imagine trying to convince teenagers of a story like that.

State funded schools should teach about religion not indoctrinate children into individual cult.

Future generations will look back and ask, knowing what we now know about the abuses and crimes carried out by the Catholic Church in that past and today, how did we let them set the ethos and control most of the schools in the country.

If people want to send their kids to a school with a religious ethos that's fine but not with state funds.

Billy86

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They already have formed their own school's.

It's atheist (sic) Ireland that hasn't bothered to pull its finger out of it's arse and set up secular schools.

So the catholic schools have to keep admitting non-Cstholic kids.

How much funding does say, an Educate Together primary school receive vs a Catholic primary school of similar size?

One eyed Jack

Auguste Comte wrote: »

This is why the Catholic Church will hang on to the education system for as long as they can. Firstly the pressure on parents to have their kids christened although they otherwise would never darken the door of a church. This is very useful to the church and the likes of the iona institute as they get to claim them all as practicing members when they are lobbying politicians for whatever they want.

They have to get kids young to get into their heads with their bull that there is this god who really loves YOU but if you piss him off he will send you to a firey pit to burn for all eternity. Imagine trying to convince teenagers of a story like that.

State funded schools should teach about religion not indoctrinate children into individual cult.

Future generations will look back and ask, knowing what we now know about the abuses and crimes carried out by the Catholic Church in that past and today, how did we let them set the ethos and control most of the schools in the country.

If people want to send their kids to a school with a religious ethos that's fine but not with state funds.

Fortunately you don't get to make that decision for those parents either, they do.

Also the provision of schools isn't solely decided on the basis of who lobbies for a particular type of education, it's based upon a number of different factors, the least of which has anything to do with how many people the Catholic Bishops of Ireland (who are the largest representative patron body) can claim are members, and it has fcukall to do with the Iona Institute which most people have never even heard of, let alone gives two fcuks about.

tabby aspreme

_Brian wrote: »

I reason that boards couldn’t continue to do voluntary work, just different people.

At the moment the 8 board members are made up of, 2 patrons reps, 2 teachers , the principal and 1 other , 2 parents reps, and 2 community reps, chosen by the first 6 people. I think it would be difficult if the 2 patrons reps were replaced by paid ETB staff regarding making decisions on the day to day running of the school as currently each board member has an equal say in decision making

Shadowstrife

I watched a documentary about Paul Shafer's Colonia Dignidad in Chile.

The similarities between that torturous cult and the Catholic Church's grip on Ireland in decades past, is alarming.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/paul-sch-fer-nazi-colonel-who-established-an-anti-semitic-colony-in-chile-after-the-war-1981014.html

kneemos

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it doesn't suit you? No thanks.





Yes, the State will ensure that parents are ensuring their children are receiving a minimum standard of education. It's up to the parents to provide that education if they don't want to enrol their children in any educational institution.

Educate at home you'll have people calling to asses the child's progress.

tabby aspreme

Billy86 wrote: »

How much funding does say, an Educate Together primary school receive vs a Catholic primary school of similar size?

Identical, the money follows the child, so much/head

TheValeyard

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Most of the land used for school building was given to the church in trust for the provision of schools.

The church owes the state hundreds of millions in redress for the clerical abuse settlements. Just size the land national and secondary schools are built on and tell them we'll take the remainder in installments until they finally repay the victims of their abuse.

Yes, the land....
Scare any potential business from ever developing or expanding in this country again.

One eyed Jack

kneemos wrote: »

Educate at home you'll have people calling to asses the child's progress.

Well yeah, and that's fast becoming a popular option for many parents in Ireland who make the decision for themselves and their children to homeschool their children. It works really well for parents I know who choose to educate their children at home and there are a number of organisations in Ireland providing support to parents to enable them to meet the requirements and standards mandated by the State.

padd b1975

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think you know what discrimination means




My children live in a very small town in Limerick, there is one primary school. Their mother is an atheist and I am too. They have no choice but to attend a Catholic Primary school, where my son was taught his Hail Mary's before being taught basic math.

This was only 3 years ago.

You obviously didn't do any due diligence whatsoever before raising a family in an area with such limited education options.

Of course that's someone else's fault...

Virgil°

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a strawman, that's essentially what it comes down to, even in your own post. That's nothing I haven't heard before that doesn't simply boil down to - it doesn't suit you.

However, the current system suits me, so why would I want it to change?

Redundant. You could boil down any argument about any issue to that. It didn't "suit us" to exclude gay people from marriage or "suit us" to keep the 8th in place. The reasons why it didn't "suit us" however were far from trivial as you seem to be implying.

You say that the State shouldn't be involved in the indoctrination of children, but that's a decision I think should be left to the parents to avail of the type of education they want for their children which is congruent with their values and world views. I want my child taught the Catholic catechism and educated according to the Catholic ethos.

No problem, fund your own schools though or teach your child in your own time. You aren't entitled to state funding for this.

Part of providing that education involves preparation for the sacraments, and it's done both at home and in school. You may not regard freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom to manifest ones religion as particularly important fundamental human rights granted to all citizens, but the State does.

Then you don't understand freedom of religion. The key behind freedom of religion is that you are free to practise or change your religious beliefs free from state intervention.
That right does not extend to demanding a state funded body(the school) enshrine your particular strand of religion.
I cannot demand a school teaches Islam as true or prepares and dedicates time for eid or ramadan. I can't demand a school teaches a that no god exist and nor should I be allowed. This doesn't infringe on my right to follow or practise my own religious beliefs at all.

Grayson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a strawman, that's essentially what it comes down to, even in your own post. That's nothing I haven't heard before that doesn't simply boil down to - it doesn't suit you.

However, the current system suits me, so why would I want it to change?

You say that the State shouldn't be involved in the indoctrination of children, but that's a decision I think should be left to the parents to avail of the type of education they want for their children which is congruent with their values and world views. I want my child taught the Catholic catechism and educated according to the Catholic ethos.

Part of providing that education involves preparation for the sacraments, and it's done both at home and in school. You may not regard freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom to manifest ones religion as particularly important fundamental human rights granted to all citizens, but the State does.

There are no other options though. There's literally none for most people. You said "if they don't like it, go somewhere else". They can't. It's just not possible. And it's not like those are edge cases, that's for the majority of the population.

And freedom of religion doesn't mean that the state has to teach that religion. That's a false equivalency. Parents would still be free to teach whatever religion they want. they would still be free to go to church. They would still be allowed to say their catholic. Not a single one of those would be endangered. Trying to say otherwise is just misleading and hysteria.

One eyed Jack

Virgil° wrote: »

Redundant. You could boil down any argument about any issue to that. It didn't "suit us" to exclude gay people from marriage or "suit us" to keep the 8th in place. The reasons why it didn't "suit us" however were far from trivial as you seem to be implying.

I'm not saying the reasons presented so far by those who want religious organisations to be excluded from applying to the for State for funding are trivial, I'm saying their reasons just aren't very compelling.

No problem, fund your own schools though or teach your child in your own time. You aren't entitled to state funding for this.

I am though. I'm as entitled to it as any other patron body which applies for funding from the State. That way I don't have to fund my own schools when the State is perfectly willing to provide funding for them. I can teach my child in my own time, and I can send them to a school which aligns with my conscience, world view, morals, philosophy, whatever way you want to word that.

Then you don't understand freedom of religion. The key behind freedom of religion is that you are free to practise or change your religious beliefs free from state intervention.

That's correct, and it was in response to the suggestion that religion should be a private matter that's kept out of schools and so on. The Constitution doesn't quite see it that way.

That right does not extend to demanding a state funded body(the school) enshrine your particular strand of religion.
I cannot demand a school teaches Islam as true or prepares and dedicates time for eid or ramadan. I can't demand a school teaches a that no god exist and nor should I be allowed. This doesn't infringe on my right to follow or practise my own religious beliefs at all.

Actually you can, you can make all the demands you want, like demanding that the State should only fund a particular type of education which suits you. I'm not arguing that though. I'm arguing that you can have your education model that suits you, and at the same time you don't infringe on the education model that suits me, and both models are funded by the State. I think that's treating people equally and fairly myself.