Catholic sacraments to become optional in schools?

One eyed Jack

circadian wrote: »

Taxpayers aren't paying for education? Who pays the teachers?

The Department of Education and Skills -

SALARY

Permanent and fixed term teachers are paid by the Department of Education and Skills [DES] 26 times per year, normally on a Thursday. The DES operates a PayPath facility through which salary is paid directly to a bank or building society account.


You can find out more here -

https://www.into.ie/ROI/InfoforTeachers/NewTeachers/

Or here -

https://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Services/Payroll-Financial/Payroll-Services-and-Information.html

xckjoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Department of Education and Skills -

SALARY

Permanent and fixed term teachers are paid by the Department of Education and Skills [DES] 26 times per year, normally on a Thursday. The DES operates a PayPath facility through which salary is paid directly to a bank or building society account.


You can find out more here -

https://www.into.ie/ROI/InfoforTeachers/NewTeachers/

Or here -

https://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Services/Payroll-Financial/Payroll-Services-and-Information.html

Where does DES get the money to pay the salaries?

One eyed Jack

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Why should a school be responsible for your religion? Religion is nothing to do with education. Teaching Christian values is a matter for parents not teachers.

Religion is a personal matter. School is not the place for it. Unless you are covering in objectivity all religions as a subject, not exercising it.

You may need to brush up on your Constitutional and Human Rights Law.

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You may need to brush up on your Constitutional and Human Rights Law.

I didn't realise I was typing a legal dissertation.

circadian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Department of Education and Skills -

SALARY

Permanent and fixed term teachers are paid by the Department of Education and Skills [DES] 26 times per year, normally on a Thursday. The DES operates a PayPath facility through which salary is paid directly to a bank or building society account.


You can find out more here -

https://www.into.ie/ROI/InfoforTeachers/NewTeachers/

Or here -

https://www.education.ie/en/Education-Staff/Services/Payroll-Financial/Payroll-Services-and-Information.html

This will bring Government expenditure on education and skills to its highest ever level of nearly €10.8 billion. This includes the highest ever capital allocation for education - €941 million, a €196m increase on 2018.

https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2018-press-releases/PR18-10-09.html

So the taxpayer. Played yourself there Jack.

One eyed Jack

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I didn't realise I was typing a legal dissertation.

I didn’t think you were either, not with a post like that anyway where you don’t appear to be aware of the legal recognition given to religion in Irish and International law which pretty much says you’re wrong on every count.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, and using that same rationale, the RCC are funded from their own revenue that they take in for the provision of services to the State. You could of course argue that the State isn’t getting good value for money, but then you’d have far more people complaining that they can’t afford to pay for their own children’s education than the small number of people who are of the opinion that they aren’t seeing the value of their taxes. Perhaps they failed to learn in school that’s not what taxes are for. They’re not a savings scheme.

But you aren't using the same rationale. Catholic schools aren't funded from church revenue, they are directly funded by state revenue. The money isn't paid to the church. You should know by now the church doesn't really spend its own money.

One eyed Jack

xckjoo wrote: »

Where does DES get the money to pay the salaries?

Answered by circadian below -

circadian wrote: »

https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2018-press-releases/PR18-10-09.html

So the taxpayer. Played yourself there Jack.

I was asked who pays the teachers. The DES pays the teachers. The DES gets it’s budget from the Minister for Finance who is a member of Government with oversight for Government income and Expenditure. PAYE taxes are only a small percentage of total Government income, so the contribution of yours or anyone else’s taxes as a percentage of total Government income wouldn’t even buy so much as a box of chalk, relatively speaking.

In short, every taxpayer pays taxes, it doesn’t give them any say in where the Government chooses to spend it’s revenue, because that’s not how an economy or society actually functions. It’s why a thick like Peter Casey might be popular among a small minority, but the State has a duty of care for all it’s citizens, not just those who think that because they are obligated to pay taxes they get to decide where Government should spend its revenue.

If that were the case, I’d be quite happy to pay a lot less tax if it meant I didn’t have to pay for services I don’t use.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

paid for by Government, not the individual taxpayer. If individual taxpayers had to pay for their own children’s education, a lot more children would miss out on the education their parents would want for them as they couldn’t afford to pay for it themselves.

That't not what they meant, and you know that.

Hotblack Desiato

TheAsYLuMkeY wrote: »

That revenue comes from the pockets of the church attendees via the donations basket, so in a way it is the taxes of the people.

Irrelevant, churches do not fund schools.

if other members of the population within the state happen to have children that attend schools they operate because of their geographical location, they should have the right to choose if they are instructed in their theological teachings.

That right has been written in the constitution since day one, but we still have schools trying to obstruct parents from exercising their constitutional right to obtain education while maintaining their freedom of religion.

NB the constitution doesn't say that anyone has the right to state-funded religious education.

mvl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You may need to brush up on your Constitutional and Human Rights Law.

Funny thing is - I think he's allowed to think what he wants, and he can do whatever he thinks is appropriate for his children.
I am a parent and a tax payer, and this is what my needs are.
IMO, religion is an ideal candidate as one of the school subjects; you'd have certified teachers to teach it. Having it taught in public schools means the state can influence curricula and there would be no indoctrination.

@Snow_Garden: because of that extremism I feel more obliged to mention in that I am christian (public or private); But other activism triggers me lately: I am dreading the times when trans kids would be in primary schools, and the parents might need to explain what is going on with menstruating boys ...ah, wait, I am sure the "party" here thinks the school should educate towards that by now, on taxpayers money

One eyed Jack

uptherebels wrote: »

But you aren't using the same rationale. Catholic schools aren't funded from church revenue, they are directly funded by state revenue. The money isn't paid to the church. You should know by now the church doesn't really spend its own money.

I’m using exactly the same rationale because I’m talking about the services of education provided to the State by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland as Patrons of all the Catholic schools in Ireland. Church provides education, State pays them for their services. It’s significantly cheaper for the State to do that, than to attempt to provide education themselves on a national scale.

The Church has spent plenty of its own money on properties and land it provides for the purposes of education, which is why contrary to popular belief- Churches established schools to provide religious education, the State established fannyadamsworth in terms of schools and school facilities. The State pays the teachers and staff, but their contracts of employment are with the Board of Management of the schools in which they are employed.

The State provides for education and on that basis funds the education of all children regardless of the Patrons of the schools, as long as the Patron body meets the criteria to qualify for funding from the State.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That't not what they meant, and you know that.

I know what they meant HD and frankly it bugs the shìt out of me that there are idiots who think that because they pay taxes they should be able to deny other people their human rights. One has no relation to the other.

Charles Ingles

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you think the lizard people might have something to do with it Charles?

Lizard people? No idea what you are talking about

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t think you were either, not with a post like that anyway where you don’t appear to be aware of the legal recognition given to religion in Irish and International law which pretty much says you’re wrong on every count.

Suggesting schools dont teach religion is not the same as suggesting religions shouldn't be recognised. In fact I clearly said religion shouldn't be taught unless it's an educational subject.

The constitution can be changed by referendum and I'm pretty sure as a glaring example France don't have religious instruction in secular schools*. Are they in breach of international law? Are the educate together schools here breaching both international AND Constitutional law?

*it obviously needs to be clearly identified that this is not meant as a legal statement or as an authoratitive account of the French education system, I am offering it up on a discussion basis only.

One eyed Jack

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Suggesting schools dont teach religion is not the same as suggesting religions shouldn't be recognised. In fact I clearly said religion shouldn't be taught unless it's an educational subject.

And I could have gone into detail and pointed out that what you’re suggesting would violate people’s human rights, but I didn’t take your suggestion seriously as it was so, so fundamentally flawed.

The constitution can be changed by referendum and I'm pretty sure as a glaring example France don't have religious instruction in secular schools*. Are they in breach of international law? Are the educate together schools here breaching both international AND Constitutional law?

*it obviously needs to be clearly identified that this is not meant as a legal statement or as an authoratitive account of the French education system, I am offering it up on a discussion basis only.

Not much discussion to be had really, the answer to both your questions is no.

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And I could have gone into detail and pointed out that what you’re suggesting would violate people’s human rights, but I didn’t take your suggestion seriously as it was so, so fundamentally flawed.





Not much discussion to be had really, the answer to both your questions is no.

It breaches human rights to take religion out of schools but those who have done it haven't breached human rights :pac:

If you don't like a post or don't feel you want to discuss it... Replying to it seems a bit bizarre.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know what they meant HD and frankly it bugs the shout of me that there are idiots who think that because they pay taxes they should be able to deny other people their human rights. One has no relation to the other.

It's not catholics whose human rights are being denied, Jack.

Nobody has a right to religious instruction at taxpayer expense.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m using exactly the same rationale because I’m talking about the services of education provided to the State by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland as Patrons of all the Catholic schools in Ireland. Church provides education, State pays them for their services. It’s significantly cheaper for the State to do that, than to attempt to provide education themselves on a national scale.

The Church has spent plenty of its own money on properties and land it provides for the purposes of education, which is why contrary to popular belief- Churches established schools to provide religious education, the State established fannyadamsworth in terms of schools and school facilities. The State pays the teachers and staff, but their contracts of employment are with the Board of Management of the schools in which they are employed.

The State provides for education and on that basis funds the education of all children regardless of the Patrons of the schools, as long as the Patron body meets the criteria to qualify for funding from the State.

No your using some mental gymnastics to try and use the same rationale. Well maybe you point out how much of the 10.9 billion education budget is paid to the church for provision of these services? The part the state specifically pays them for their services?
What difference does it make whom a teacher's contract is with? They are paid by the state.
I'm not very up to date on church land holdings, but how much has the church actually paid for? Not built with government grants? Or given under a deed of trust?

uptherebels

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It breaches human rights to take religion out of schools but those who have done it haven't breached human rights :pac:

If you don't like a post or don't feel you want to discuss it... Replying to it seems a bit bizarre.

As far as I'm aware the ECHR ruled there is no right to a religious education in public schools

One eyed Jack

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It breaches human rights to take religion out of schools but those who have done it haven't breached human rights :pac:

If you don't like a post or don't feel you want to discuss it... Replying to it seems a bit bizarre.

You asked me were secular schools in breach of human rights law and I answered that they weren’t. What’s to discuss?

The schools you’re talking about were never established as religious schools in the first place, that’s the difference between denying religious education in a religious ethos school, and a school where there was never a religious ethos in the first place. They’re two different types of schools offering two different types of education.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not catholics whose human rights are being denied, Jack.

Nobody has a right to religious instruction at taxpayer expense.

It would be if some people here had their way though. But you’re right, it’s not Catholics whose human rights are being denied and that’s not likely to happen any time soon either.

It’s not religious instruction at taxpayers expense either, it’s at the expense of the State, which is obligated to provide for religious instruction in education -


However, if parents in Ireland want the State to provide for RI in State schools or State recognised schools, the Constitution, it appears, requires that it be provided. In the Campaign case Costello P in the High Court stated that Art 42.4 enjoins the State when providing educational facilities to have regard to religious and moral formation.


The Irish Constitution: Education and Human Rights in Recognised Schools

Sardonicat

Jack, how do you think the State gets money? Where do you think it comes from? The 'State' is is us, BTW. It's the legal/administrive function of every man, woman and child who is a citizen of this country.

One eyed Jack

Sardonicat wrote: »

Jack, how do you think the State gets money? Where do you think it comes from? The 'State' is is us, BTW. It's the legal/administrive function of every man, woman and child who is a citizen of this country.

Where the State gets its money is completely irrelevant to the issue of where the State spends its money, or rather where the Minister for Finance on behalf of Government will decide where the revenue the State receives from numerous sources will be distributed.

That’s why the idea of individual taxpayers having any perceived right to determine where “their taxes” are spent is just nonsense, which is actually a good thing for every man, woman and child in this country, citizen or not.

FunLover18

This suggestion doesn't remove religious education from schools though. I understand it's just the sacraments and the required preparation. Also worth noting again that this suggestion comes from within the church.

Skylinehead

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where the State gets its money is completely irrelevant to the issue of where the State spends its money, or rather where the Minister for Finance on behalf of Government will decide where the revenue the State receives from numerous sources will be distributed.

That’s why the idea of individual taxpayers having any perceived right to determine where “their taxes” are spent is just nonsense, which is actually a good thing for every man, woman and child in this country, citizen or not.

This whole argument is a strawman invented by yourself. Nobody suggested that taxpayers should have a direct say in what their money is used for, only that State money (ie taxes despite your pedantic bullshit) shouldn't be used for religion.

You're inventing arguments against you.

Hannibal_Smith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You asked me were secular schools in breach of human rights law and I answered that they weren’t. What’s to discuss?

The schools you’re talking about were never established as religious schools in the first place, that’s the difference between denying religious education in a religious ethos school, and a school where there was never a religious ethos in the first place. They’re two different types of schools offering two different types of education.

You suggested my opinion that school and education be separated was a breach of a human right and recommended I brush up on my constitional and international law. I gave two perfectly good examples of how education and religion are perfectly separated both here and abroad. You agree that they are not in breach of any international or constutional law, so I fail to see the relevance of referring me to them.

You say there's nothing to discuss... But you're happily discussing it.

nice_guy80

most schools in rural Ireland were set up at the edges of parishes to generate money for the church
Why? to suck in families and children from neighbouring parishes into that parish and so get them going to the church and suck more money out of them.
some parishes were known as wealthy parishes for that very reason
eg in the local parish there were 5 primary schools. one in the central village and four more out at the corners of the parish.
3 of those schools on the edge of the parish have now closed due to dwindling numbers

mvl

nice_guy80 wrote: »

3 of those schools on the edge of the parish have now closed due to dwindling numbers

How does this work : would closing few schools in one parish allow opening new ones in other parishes where/if the population has increased meanwhile ?

sk8erboii

Sonny noggs wrote: »

How did you do in the mocks? All set for the Leaving cert?

Another cringy rereg post. These ‘zingers’ are pretty low IQ