Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

Absolam wrote: »

But not at all whataboutery when addressing the notion that the goal here is to get a decent secular education for our kids. In fact it's entirely to the point; we ought not to mistake the idea that what a small number of people would like is actually THE goal. In the context of a discussion about education, THE goal is the best education possible, and driving an anti-theist agenda is somewhat less important. Ireland ranks reasonably highly in the OECD PISA study (8 places ahead of secular France, interestingly), and I wouldn't like to see us pursue a course that would leave students with a less than decent, yet secular, education.

See, it works like that too! Can you explain precisely how 'the best education possible' is served by spending hours preparing children for religious ceremonies? The answer to date has always been 'because that is what the parents want'; this is not the same as 'the best' for children's education.

looksee wrote: »

See, it works like that too!

Sure it does. And if anyone were proposing to relieve 80% of schools of their patrons so that they could be handed over to religious organisations, I'd be equally derisive.

looksee wrote: »

Can you explain precisely how 'the best education possible' is served by spending hours preparing children for religious ceremonies? The answer to date has always been 'because that is what the parents want'; this is not the same as 'the best' for children's education.

Well, I did originally say the most advantageous education possible, rather than 'the best education possible', though if you accept it's up to a parent to decide what's best for their child, it's much the same. Still, if ceremonial preparation is a part of the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education parents want for their children, and they feel it's worth spending hours on it, then a school that provides it is precisely the most advantageous education possible. Isn't it? Surely you don't think you're in a position to tell parents that when they seek the most advantageous (or best) education possible, it should be by your definition, and not theirs?

Yeah, it's so extreme to want a public service that doesn't discriminate based on religion! This country totally went to hell in a handcart after removing the "special position" of the Catholic Church from our constitution! The industrial schools and the Magdalene laundries did nothing wrong!

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yeah, it's so extreme to want a public service that doesn't discriminate based on religion! This country totally went to hell in a handcart after removing the "special position" of the Catholic Church from our constitution! The industrial schools and the Magdalene laundries did nothing wrong!

But nobody is stopping anyone from campaigning for that PP, the people campaigning for it just don't appear to have made a very convincing argument that would encourage enough people that their ideals warrant serious enough consideration to want to support them. In the Forum for Pluralism and Patronage surveys, the take-away message appears to be that people support the idea of there being more choices for other people. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of a majority supporting the exclusion of the religious orders from the patronage system.

For those people for whom the Magdelene laundries and the industrial schools are a factor in their decisions regarding their children's education, it would appear to me at least then to be completely irrational that they would go to such lengths to have the religious affiliation criteria removed from schools providing a religious education so that they could enroll their children in schools where they have such a strong objection to supporting the ethos of the school, yet supporting the school by having their children enrolled in the school, for which the State is obliged to provide for their children's education?

I'm quite familiar with the various types of education available in Ireland, and I'm quite aware of international studies that suggest a secular, pluralistic education leads to better outcomes and happier children in adulthood and so on, but those studies are meaningless to me at an individual level where I consider all circumstances that are pertinent to the outcomes that I would wish for my child. I of course acknowledge that other people have different ideals and wishes for their children, and that is their prerogative, and I respect that. I would wish that they would also show me the same respect. Most people do, some people don't, but I wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. I don't think that leads to a good outcome for anyone. To me as I said, I think that at best, that's just arrogant, and at worst it's simply ignorant. Neither are particular pleasant attributes in an individual IMO, and hence would be even more unlikely to make me want to support their ideals if they are an example of it's outcome.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm quite familiar with the various types of education available in Ireland, and I'm quite aware of international studies that suggest a secular, pluralistic education leads to better outcomes and happier children in adulthood and so on, but those studies are meaningless to me at an individual level where I consider all circumstances that are pertinent to the outcomes that I would wish for my child. I of course acknowledge that other people have different ideals and wishes for their children, and that is their prerogative, and I respect that. I would wish that they would also show me the same respect. Most people do, some people don't, but I wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. I don't think that leads to a good outcome for anyone. To me as I said, I think that at best, that's just arrogant, and at worst it's simply ignorant. Neither are particular pleasant attributes in an individual IMO, and hence would be even more unlikely to make me want to support their ideals if they are an example of it's outcome.

Just out of interest, what do you think your son would miss out on if he had a secular education? Would your church not be able to provide the religious education aspect in a sunday school type setting....I'm assuming you go to mass so that wouldn't be a problem Or do you feel, like some do, that secular education like the ET model is some kind of weird hippie stuff not to be trusted.

looksee wrote: »

I think the 'extremists' on this forum are the very few people who insist they know what the population wants, based on the status quo! Your bottom line is that 'parents want' what you are stating they want, with minimal evidence. The fact that the Catholic Church has almost all the education system clutched in its greedy, self-serving paw does not prove that that is what most people want for their children.

Is that really any different from other people suggesting that the type of education system that they want is the one that is better for everyone, based upon studies done in other countries? Their bottom line is what they want, and demanding that other people justify the status quo. The problem with that line of thinking is - other people don't feel they have to justify the status quo. The onus is on people who want change, to come up with a more compelling argument than insulting the very people whose support they need, to introduce a system where they're trying to convince people that one of the outcomes is that people are happier and more tolerant of people who aren't them. Seems to me they have no intention of practicing what they preach. If they want people to support their ideals, then surely the better strategy would be to lead by example?

No one has yet explained how having children trained for religious ceremonies in school time is beneficial to their education - other than the repeated and unproved mantra that that is what parents want.

Preparation for religious ceremonies is part of a religious education for adherents of that religion or religious denomination. It's not just done in school, preparation is also done at home, and in their community, on a continuous basis throughout their childhood, not just when these ceremonies occur when they reach 2nd and 6th class in school.

looksee wrote: »

I have to correct you on that Absolam, you said:
Now it is more than likely that you will try and claim that 'the most advantageous education' is not the same as 'beneficial' to education; as far as I am concerned it has the same meaning, if you choose to differ that is your privilege but it does not progress the argument.

Plenty of sleep, a good family life, the tools required for engaging with an education, these are all beneficial to an education. An advantageous education on the other hand, is one that educates the child in what will provide them the advantages their parent wishes for them. In either case, as I've shown, the argument can be made that instruction in religious ceremonies can be part of an advantageous education, and can be beneficial to an education, if that's the education parents want. But you're right; you're not progressing either argument you offered if you're not addressing what I said in either case but rather opining on whether they're the same thing.

looksee wrote: »

And as far as circular arguments go, the paragraph

Absolam wrote: »

Still, it has to be said that if their education is to be one that includes a working knowledge of religious ceremonies, then it is assuredly to the benefit of that education to be instructed in those ceremonies.

is a doozy.

Do you think that makes a difference? The argument "it has to be said that if their education is to be one that includes a working knowledge of calculus, then it is assuredly to the benefit of that education to be instructed in calculus" is equally circular, but entirely true nonetheless.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that is essentially what it comes down to - parents choices for their children, and what those parents feel is the type of education they feel is best for their children.

Not this BS again.

To all intents and purposes, the vast majority of parents have no choice at all. 90% of primary schools are RC and about 6% are CoI / other religion, that doesn't leave many secular options and those which do exist are usually vastly oversubscribed.

Now before you give me any 'build their own schools' BS, or homeschooling BS, you know well these are not viable options. The Dept of Education will only sanction new schools where unmet demand for places exists - that's ANY type of places, not a specific type of places. So a new ET or whatever school is only a possibility in areas of population growth. Even then, the DoE can decide to just expand the existing denominational schools in that area, or award a new school to a denominational patron, and there is nothing at all that parents can do about this.

Establishing a school without DoE funding is not an option except for the very richest parents. Homeschooling is equally not an option for the vast majority of parents either, and is positively anti-social and bad for society -similar to religious segregation, but even worse - a 'church' consisting of one insular family. Bad idea.

Choice my rear end. There is no real choice so don't you dare claim that parents forced to accept the status quo are accepting of that status quo when you have absolutely no evidence to back that up.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not this BS again.

To all intents and purposes, the vast majority of parents have no choice at all. 90% of primary schools are RC and about 6% are CoI / other religion, that doesn't leave many secular options and those which do exist are usually vastly oversubscribed.

Now before you give me any 'build their own schools' BS, or homeschooling BS, you know well these are not viable options. The Dept of Education will only sanction new schools where unmet demand for places exists - that's ANY type of places, not a specific type of places. So a new ET or whatever school is only a possibility in areas of population growth. Even then, the DoE can decide to just expand the existing denominational schools in that area, or award a new school to a denominational patron, and there is nothing at all that parents can do about this.

Yes this BS again as you put it, because who is responsible for putting the public servants in place who implement these policies and will implement change when there is enough pressure brought to bear on them to implement change? I'm not going to be smart about it, but they're the people who come knocking on your doorstep every time they want something from you, like your vote. If more people put pressure on them to implement change, change gets implemented.

Establishing a school without DoE funding is not an option except for the very richest parents. Homeschooling is equally not an option for the vast majority of parents either, and is positively anti-social and bad for society -similar to religious segregation, but even worse - a 'church' consisting of one insular family. Bad idea.

Do you expect that people right now who have free education should support a system which would see them in your position then? Turkeys, voting for Christmas.

I wouldn't knock home schooling either btw, it's fast gaining popularity in this country amongst people who are unsatisfied with the current education system over the last number of years. I know quite a few parents who homeschool their children and their children are taught a curriculum and they still manage to socialise and have all the things you think they could be missing out on. It's not a choice you would make for yourself, it's not a choice I would make for myself, but then ET or secular education weren't choices I would make for myself either. I would support other parents who would and have made these choices for their children though, because that's what's fundamental to a society IMO - understanding that people who aren't you, have different ideas and ideals that they would want for themselves and their families and their children. It's all education, but it begins with the family, and a formal education, should the parents choose it, builds on that education, and the parents feel supported, the children feel supported.

Hell, isn't that the whole bloody reason why you want access to the type of education that you would want for your children? Why do you above all others get to decide what is or isn't best for society? I don't have that right, but I certainly do still maintain my fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution to be the primary educator of my own child. I also maintain the right not to send my child to a facility which would be a violation of my conscience, so even if you did, somehow gain enough support for your ideas, I'd still avoid a school like that like the plague. I'd want nothing to do with it personally, but if someone else chose to send their children there, I'll support them, but if they tried to question or enforce their ideas on me or my child? Rather than turn the other cheek, they'd be told to naff off PDQ.

Choice my rear end. There is no real choice so don't you dare claim that parents forced to accept the status quo are accepting of that status quo when you have absolutely no evidence to back that up.

Ehh, I'll claim whatever I damn well please tbh, freedom of expression as long as I'm not offending public morals and all that. I'm as entitled to my perspective as you are to yours, and I can interpret the evidence I see when I'm going about my daily life as you can in yours. It shouldn't come as a shock to you or to anyone else that we may lead completely different lives which would colour our perceptions and inform our opinions, even down to the way we might interpret the evidence presented in the report on the Forum on Pluralism and Patronage differently - parents want more choice of types of schools. The Government are going to have to address the issue sooner rather than later, and this meagre piecemeal effort of proposing an admissions bill that prohibits criteria that isn't used in the majority of schools in Ireland anyway? Politicians won't want to stub their toe while they're kicking the can down the road.

It might be a good time to point out that this is A&A, The Valeyard. That's the place where A&A-ers get to post the stuff that you consider rubbish. If you find it so upsetting you could consider just...you know...posting in a forum that you consider less rubbish. We really will not be offended if you decide to go and agree amongst yourselves about your right to religious education, you could even have a conversation about introducing creationism without anyone mocking you!

Meanwhile I am getting a bit bored with all the baseless, garbled, circular arguments so I will leave you to it for a bit - unless it is necessary for me to put on my mod cap and hit someone with my ban hammer. Have fun.

smacl wrote: »

When you have many elderly members of a family who's principal memory of the brother and nuns relate to severity and frequency of beatings it really beggars belief that the clergy are allowed have any influence on young minds in this modern era.

I'm not going to quote the whole post as I actually do agree with everything you said in it, but I just wanted to address this bit - I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, and I can understand completely how it truly does seem incredible that people who one would assume would remember the negative influence of the religious orders (and I do), would allow the clergy to have any influence on young minds in this modern age.

That argument though has to make a number of assumptions -

- That the clergy still have the influence on young minds they once had in Irish society. We can both surely agree that they don't. There are far more greater influential factors on a childs development nowadays that we understand, that weren't so well understood when the clergy had greater influence.

- That the clergy in the modern era haven't changed one bit in the modern era since then. They have, I can go to my priest and take a load off for free, or I can go to a psychologist and pay the guts of €70 per session for the privilege. Priest seems to be just as understanding as a psychologist would be, sometimes even more so, what with him being human and all.

- The assumption that most people of that era have had bad experiences of that era which have left them with bad memories. I can only say from my own experiences that I have good memories of that time in any of my interactions with the clergy or any member of the religious orders.

- More teachers nowadays with direct influence on young minds are quite young themselves after the great number of older teachers (including my own mother) took early retirement, and they're lay people. They're not the craw thumpy types, they can't be, because they're practically eyeballed within an inch of their lives around children and any complaints, the parent is often in the same day to have a word. Teachers are supposed to be acting in loco parentis, but they're in an unenviable position IMO which is one of the reasons why I never became a teacher myself - I'd have had to do it with two hands tied behind my back and have to put up with constant scrutiny under a cloud of constant suspicion - not worth it.

So, having said all that - none of it particularly relates to why I would not want any other type of formal education for my child, but the simplest answer is that I believe the type of education in the type of school he's in, is the one which is most in line with my world view and the potential outcomes I would want for my child as an adult. I haven't done too shabbily out of it, so naturally I'm more biased in favour of religious education in a same-sex school. Other peoples criteria for what they consider the best type of education for their children that they believe will provide the best outcomes for their child will vary. It's like you said yourself earlier in the thread - idealism will take a back seat to realism. It does for me too as there are also numerous practical and pragmatic factors that my wife and I considered for our childs education that would lead to what we considered to be the best outcome for our child. The best outcome for society though? That's not at all as important to me as my own child.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that is essentially what it comes down to - parents choices for their children, and what those parents feel is the type of education they feel is best for their children.

And yet we do. If, for example, you were to decide that what is best for your children is to keep them textually illiterate, and entirely ignorant of maths......... we would indeed be stepping in to prevent you from doing so. And so we should.

People do not OWN their children, they are at best stewards of them, and society and the state very much should be taking a hand in telling parents what education is best for and MANDATORY for their children.

If people want to teach their children unsubstantiated nonsense in their own time, that's fine with me. But I am not seeing any "ideal" being coherently argued for that the schools should be there to pander to what the parents want their children to learn. Be it religious nonsense, racism, revised history, or that 2+2=5. There is, and should never be, forms for a parent to fill out saying "My child is going to your school and here is the things I want you to be teaching them".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is that really any different from other people suggesting that the type of education system that they want is the one that is better for everyone, based upon studies done in other countries?

Well yes appealing to the status quo is VERY different to pointing out actual studies that have been done. Regardless of what country they were done in.

But given your penchant for simply dismissing studies that go against your ideologies without engaging with a SHRED of their content, while erecting nonsense narratives about how it is all just biased by a liberal-agenda academia that publish studies contrived to support liberal lifestyles....... I do not think it at all surprising to see your conservatism biased blanket dismissals of studies showing once again.

But yes, I see a chasm of difference between doing and referring to actual studies, and merely clinging desperately to the status quo.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Their bottom line is what they want, and demanding that other people justify the status quo.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with that line of thinking is - other people don't feel they have to justify the status quo.

And it damn well should be justified, in an ongoing basis, and if I could press a magic button tomorrow and replace the entire education system, curriculum, and access to it with the kinds of systems I would argue would be more ideal....... I would want THAT to keep on justifying itself in on ongoing basis too!

This is the education of our current kids and future generations we are talking about here. We should constantly be reviewing it, asking what we are doing, why we are doing it, whether it is the best thing to be doing, and whether better and more effective paths are open to us.

The only people whining about justifying their views on such things, are the people who are seemingly incapable of doing it.

The only thing I think we CAN justify in our schools is teaching children only the things we have actual reason to think true about the world and society and history. And the ideas contained in religions tend to be entirely unsubstantiated nonsense claims with no merit or utility. I see no reason why they have place in our schools or our curriculum and the argument "But they mammy and daddy want it so" is not at all convincing to me any more than "Mammy and Daddy wants the school to teach children that black people are inferior" would be. We are talking about schools here, not al a carte restaurants.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Preparation for religious ceremonies is part of a religious education for adherents of that religion or religious denomination. It's not just done in school, preparation is also done at home, and in their community, on a continuous basis throughout their childhood, not just when these ceremonies occur when they reach 2nd and 6th class in school.

Yea they can prepare in their home or their club house to perform the ceremonies of their particular hobby of choice. Just like when I trained in Kenpo Karate after hours in my school building, I prepared for the ceremonial belt rankings in my own time, in my club house, at home, and with my friends.

It had nothing to do with school, access to school, the curriculum, or anything else. Nor should it. In fact there is likely MORE and BETTER arguments for inclusion of a martial art in a school curriculum than there is for teaching stories about a long dead unemployed Jewish Carpenters Son and his magic powers.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Give people a choice, if not believers want their own schools, have the state build them. Stop forcing Catholics to become secularists or conform to secular ideology.

Why should we? We have every much a say in society as them, and if we want to say society should be secular then just try and stop us. Get your pitchfork or whatever you require ready.... but if you do not have the WORDS to argue back against people arguing for a secular society then perhaps wanton violence is for you.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Maybe it's time that Christians start forming new protest groups like the insidious and odious Atheist Ireland and keep shouting everyone down until everyone shuts ups and agrees with them.

Except Atheist Ireland does no such thing. They have 3 or 4 media spokespeople who show up often in the media and I have not seen or heard them shout anyone down in general. EVERYONE on radio and television is guilty of the occasional interuption or talking over someone else of course, but I have not seen many (and certainly not the people from atheist Ireland) guilty of it to any significant level.