nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Looks like the Government will have to back track on baptism barrier policy

Beta Ray Bill

It is not the Church's job to provide education in this country

A Catholic barrister says it is not up to the Church to provide education for the children of this country.

The Catholic Church is warning that removing the baptism barrier will leave the State at risk of massive legal action.

It is unhappy that rules will be different for minorities who will still be able to admit children of their faith - even where places are oversubscribed.

Barrister Maria Steen of the Iona Insitute says the government needs to look at resources rather than the Church.

She said: "There has been an abysmal failure on part of this Government to identify areas of rapid growth and provide school places, and there’s no excuse for them trying to pass the buck to the churches, and particularly the Catholic Church.

"They’ve been hiding behind the Catholic Churches schools for long enough. It is the minister’s duty to provide schools, not the Catholic Churches."

Look's like the Church are gearing up for legal action against the state should they try and force the removal for the Baptism Barrier.

I think this "Barrier" is ultimately wrong, that being said however... The Catholic Church own the majority of schools right?
Therefore they quite rightly should be allowed to say who can and who can't be educated on their property.
It's just a shame they've decided to be pricks about it.

Regardless, it would seem that Governments failure to act has come back to bite them in the Ass.... Again!
And not just this government, the last 4 or 5 governments should have at least got the ball rolling on a long term solution to this, when it became apparent that there was going to be a problem. (Like everything else I suppose)

My Son is not baptised, however I live in Dublin so this hopefully should not be an issue for me/him.

I feel for people that live in rural areas that have to put up with this crap.
You'd wonder where all the Tax we pay actually goes!?

Anyone else here in with kids not baptised that's been affected by this?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ohnonotgmail

the catholic church may own the buildings but the government pay all of the running costs for schools.

Atoms for Peace

At the end of the day in places with adequate school places education is quite egalitarian here in Ireland, well compared to other nations in the anglo-sphere, I don't want to see that change.

evolving_doors

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the catholic church may own the buildings but the government pay all of the running costs for schools.

True, and either way it's tax payers that have funded education through charitable donations to the church over the last few hundred years.
It's not as if 'the church' is some separate entity which came out of nowhere and stuck it's hand in it's pockets and started throwing money at us.
The inference is that we 'owe' the church and must pay with souls and obedience.

Then again from the governments perspective she's correct. Look at the health system, charities (both religious and non-religious) are picking up the slack and doing things which should be done by the state as a matter of course for it's own citizens. e.g. A colleague from Germany was asking why a children's hospital was shaking buckets at the end of a checkout counter in Dunnes Stores, he just couldn't understand the concept, it actually made me feel embarrassed, we find it normal here.

mcgovern

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the catholic church may own the buildings but the government pay all of the running costs for schools.

And they could always transfer the ownership of the schools over to the state as part of the millions they owe for abusing children in their care.

ohnonotgmail

mcgovern wrote: »

And they could always transfer the ownership of the schools over to the state as part of the millions they owe for abusing children in their care.

if the government had a pair of balls between themselves they would do so.

[Deleted User]

A large number of members of the religious orders, as part of the catholic church in Ireland, are responsible for systematically abusing children entrusted to their care.

The financial compensation offered and paid is wholly inadequate, with several orders paying ridiculously low settlements while still holding land based assets.

It’s time that ended. ALL faith based segregation and ownership of primary and secondary schools should be ended. The state should own these educational institutions, whether via local government or a form of trust etc.

The days when the churches should have ANY influence on educating children is long passed. Removing schools from their control and ownership is long overdue.

kylith

grahambo wrote: »

I think this "Barrier" is ultimately wrong, that being said however... The Catholic Church own the majority of schools right?
Therefore they quite rightly should be allowed to say who can and who can't be educated on their property.

They may own the building and/or the land, but the state pays for the upkeep, maintenance, and staffing.

If I lease a shop space in a shopping centre should the centre be allowed to dictate who I hire or who I allow in my store?

If the RCC wants to discriminate against students or employees then they should start paying the bills themselves.

looksee

A Catholic barrister says it is not up to the Church to provide education for the children of this country.

In that case it should be very easy for the Church to withdraw as Patrons from all schools that they do not actively own and run - which is a very large proportion, and most of the Primary system. They are not 'providing' education, they are simply Patrons who have a high involvement in curriculum and ethos in schools.

And the Dept of Education could remove the need for a patron in schools - all schools unless they are self financing; whether there should be any religious schools at all, self financing or state, is a separate argument.

looksee

grahambo wrote: »

It is not the Church's job to provide education in this country

The Catholic Church own the majority of schools right?

Wrong.

Beta Ray Bill

kylith wrote: »

They may own the building and/or the land, but the state pays for the upkeep, maintenance, and staffing.

If I lease a shop space in a shopping centre should the centre be allowed to dictate who I hire or who I allow in my store?

If the RCC wants to discriminate against students or employees then they should start paying the bills themselves.

That's what I originally thought, however it would seem that it's not really a lease agreement.
It's more like an education partnership agreement.

JayZeus wrote: »

A large number of members of the religious orders, as part of the catholic church in Ireland, are responsible for systematically abusing children entrusted to their care.

The financial compensation offered and paid is wholly inadequate, with several orders paying ridiculously low settlements while still holding land based assets.

Catholic church in my opinion is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world, they have their own City.
Anyone that's been to the Vatican museums will know what I'm talking about when I say "Unimaginable wealth"

Problem is the Government entered into an agreement, not a lease.
So seizing the schools could break the agreement which could have legal ramifications.... it's an absolute mess and the church are hold all the cards

JayZeus wrote: »

It’s time that ended. ALL faith based segregation and ownership of primary and secondary schools should be ended. The state should own these educational institutions, whether via local government or a form of trust etc.

The days when the churches should have ANY influence on educating children is long passed. Removing schools from their control and ownership is long overdue.

Fully agree with you.

kylith

grahambo wrote: »

That's what I originally thought, however it would seem that it's not really a lease agreement.
It's more like an education partnership agreement.

Catholic church in my opinion is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world, they have their own City.
Anyone that's been to the Vatican museums will know what I'm talking about when I say "Unimaginable wealth"

Problem is the Government entered into an agreement, not a lease.
So seizing the schools could break the agreement which could have legal ramifications.... it's an absolute mess and the church are hold all the cards

Fully agree with you.

No, it's not a lease agreement, but there's nothing really comparable to it.

I'm not saying that the government should seize the schools, but I do think that they should give the RCC the option of either keeping their noses out of what is taught, removing religious instruction from the curriculum, and removing the baptism barrier OR handing over the properties to the state as at least part of their payment for the abuses perpetrated by Church members and organisations.

Berserker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if the government had a pair of balls between themselves they would do so.

I think that it'd be very dangerous to give the government the ability to transfer ownership of buildings and church facilities.

ohnonotgmail

Berserker wrote: »

I think that it'd be very dangerous to give the government the ability to transfer ownership of buildings and church facilities.

what is so dangerous about the ability to seize property in lieu of debts? It is done all the time.

[Deleted User]

Berserker wrote: »

I think that it'd be very dangerous to give the government the ability to transfer ownership of buildings and church facilities.

Schools and school buildings should not be church facilities in the first place.

It's the same for former CBSI scout halls all around the country, nearly all built on lands owned by the church, but funded and run without church input. When CBSI were merging with SAI (CoI) association and thereby abandoning a 'catholic ethos', the catholic church kicked up a stink, threatening to withdraw access to the surrounding grounds for activities and so forth.

The catholic church, whatever about their value as a faith to the individual, are manipulative and should have no place in determining how children are educated in modern Irish society. They are irrelevant. Even 30 years ago, people who would have turned their back went through the motions simply to ensure their children could get a school place nearby, despite the fact their taxes paid for those school places anyway.

So no, it's not at all dangerous. The right thing for the church to do would be to give ownership of a resource, which was paid for by the community, to the institution that will best protect the interests of that community. The church (ANY church) is most certainly not that institution. The people are unable to hold churches and their orders to account. This has been shown repeatedly over the last couple of decades in the courts. The churches thumb their noses and do everything they possibly can to avoid paying for their crimes against the communities.

Take the schools. Give them back to the organisations that were created to represent the people who paid for them, namely government. The church have used them to distort society for far too long already.

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the catholic church may own the buildings but the government pay all of the running costs for schools.

And a lot of the land was given for free to the church by the state in the first place.

Berserker

JayZeus wrote: »

Schools and school buildings should not be church facilities in the first place.

So, if someone decides to send their child to a private, faith specific school, which is saving the state money, they should not be allowed to do so?

seamus wrote: »

And a lot of the land was given for free to the church by the state in the first place.

Correct, the RCC didn't go around begging the state for land. The RCC was given pride of place in the Irish constitution. The 1916 leaders and Dev wanted the RCC to be the one and only church in the RoI, if I remember correctly.

ohnonotgmail

Berserker wrote: »

So, if someone decides to send their child to a private, faith specific school, which is saving the state money, they should not be allowed to do so?

even private schools get money from the state.

[Deleted User]

Berserker wrote: »

So, if someone decides to send their child to a private, faith specific school, which is saving the state money, they should not be allowed to do so?

If it's a private, fee paying school, they're entitled to set their own requirements for entry. I can think of several such examples and my objections won't apply to them.

You know exactly what I'm getting at though, so let's not get bogged down in argument based on exceptional examples.

Beta Ray Bill

seamus wrote: »

And a lot of the land was given for free to the church by the state in the first place.

Very True

Berserker wrote: »

Correct, the RCC didn't go around begging the state for land. The RCC was given pride of place in the Irish constitution. The 1916 leaders and Dev wanted the RCC to be the one and only church in the RoI, if I remember correctly.

A decision that probably seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but has since had massive and serious consequences for the people of the Republic of Ireland.

It's a decision that can never be rolled back. Catholic Church is going no where soon in Ireland.

dr.fuzzenstein

The Irish government is being cheap when it comes to education. And housing. And the health service. And public transport.
What else is new. "Ah jaysis lads, t'will cosht a bomb, there'd be nothing left for a new jet and an increase for the TD's!"

Beta Ray Bill

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The Irish government is being cheap when it comes to education. And housing. And the health service. And public transport.
What else is new. "Ah jaysis lads, t'will cosht a bomb, there'd be nothing left for a new jet and an increase for the TD's!"

My thoughts too

But where is all the money going!?

Theboinkmaster

grahambo wrote: »

My thoughts too

But where is all the money going!?

Administrators in the public service - like HSE HR team.

Skedaddle

grahambo wrote: »

Very True

A decision that probably seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but has since had massive and serious consequences for the people of the Republic of Ireland.

It's a decision that can never be rolled back. Catholic Church is going no where soon in Ireland.

Not quite. There were various different philosophies around at 1916 - they just all coalesced around the same objective of independence.

However, there were real republicans who wanted a secular, independent republic along the lines of the ideals in France's various republics. There were right wing Catholics who were going for a more Holy Catholic Ireland kind of outlook, you had various left wing groups that ranged from just organised labour to pretty much communist, and you had others like radical feminists, pacifist and anti-war activists, anti-imperialists and you also had a large degree of cultural and linguistic nationalists.

The problem was that after the dust settled the state that eventually formed was dominated by the right wing catholic and cultural nationalism elements and turned pretty weird for a long period of time. A lot of the idealism of a radical new republic ended up being replaced with a dry cultural conservatism and handing huge amounts of power over to the church and very deliberately trying to weave Catholic identity into Irish identity, two things that were quite separate. It's often just glossed over that many of the key revolutionaries weren't Catholic.

It's really only been in recent years that we have managed to untangle Irish identity from Catholic identity.

A lot of the ideals, particularly the ideals of the proclamation were completely lost on the Free State and the Republic until quite recently.

My view of it is that the spokesperson in that quote is right, the state has over depended on the religious communities and hid behind them for decades. However, I think the logical solution that is to secularise the schools and stop funding what essentially amounts to a de facto state religion and a de facto policy that looks to anyone with any bit of perspective as some kind of institutionalised sectarianism where your religion influences your state paid for educational opportunities.

Hotblack Desiato

grahambo wrote: »

It's just a shame they've decided to be pricks about it.

Honestly though, what else could you expect from that bunch? If you can get away with covering up rape and homicide you can get away with anything.

And what else is a barrister for the Iona "institute" going to say, other than that the law is on their side?

I feel for people that live in rural areas that have to put up with this crap.

The barrier is not a rural issue - usually lots of places for everyone, just no non-catholic school available.

Where the barrier kicks in is in urban areas, where snobby RCs are turning their noses up at their local RC school and sending them to a 'posher' area e.g. Dublin 6. The ET waiting list fills up at birth, so when the bussed-in kids take up the RC school places, local non-RC kids have nowhere to go.

Like health, education is not run for the benefit of those using and paying for the service, but those working in it, the holidays are just one example. It superficially might seem a good idea to have 'choice' of schools - in reality it's a disaster.

Impossible to give everyone the school of their choice on their doorstep, so we have lots of kids being bussed/driven all over the place instead of walking to their local school. Bad for their health, congestion and the environment.

Having Religion X Boys' School, Religion Y Girls' School, etc. all over the place is a huge waste of resources, makes providing decent facilities and subject choices difficult. Sexism in subject choices and expectations is a huge problem at second level. But a balkanised education system suits the churches - they don't pay the extra costs - and the teachers - lots more school principal posts.

Segregating kids into different schools by religion is the last thing we should be doing, lets churches away with all sorts and is very bad for society. In Dublin we now have 'ghetto' schools too, to make it even worse, and the baptism barrier facilitates this sort of social segregation.

Beta Ray Bill

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Honestly though, what else could you expect from that bunch? If you can get away with covering up rape and homicide you can get away with anything.

And what else is a barrister for the Iona "institute" going to say, other than that the law is on their side?

The barrier is not a rural issue - usually lots of places for everyone, just no non-catholic school available.

Where the barrier kicks in is in urban areas, where snobby RCs are turning their noses up at their local RC school and sending them to a 'posher' area e.g. Dublin 6. The ET waiting list fills up at birth, so when the bussed-in kids take up the RC school places, local non-RC kids have nowhere to go.

Like health, education is not run for the benefit of those using and paying for the service, but those working in it, the holidays are just one example. It superficially might seem a good idea to have 'choice' of schools - in reality it's a disaster.

Impossible to give everyone the school of their choice on their doorstep, so we have lots of kids being bussed/driven all over the place instead of walking to their local school. Bad for their health, congestion and the environment.

Having Religion X Boys' School, Religion Y Girls' School, etc. all over the place is a huge waste of resources, makes providing decent facilities and subject choices difficult. Sexism in subject choices and expectations is a huge problem at second level. But a balkanised education system suits the churches - they don't pay the extra costs - and the teachers - lots more school principal posts.

Segregating kids into different schools by religion is the last thing we should be doing, lets churches away with all sorts and is very bad for society. In Dublin we now have 'ghetto' schools too, to make it even worse, and the baptism barrier facilitates this sort of social segregation.

Have they not changed the rules though so as that your kids must attend a local school?
IE: there is catchment area.

I wanted to send my kid to St Colmcilles Community School, Knocklyon but I was told it was out of the catchment area (less than 2KM away)
So unless you're paying for schools, you're stuck within your catchment area.

I could be wrong about this btw, maybe my Son is a victim of the barrier

You are correct in terms of segregating schools by religion.
Education and religion should be two completely separate things.

Berserker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

even private schools get money from the state.

They get some funding but those schools are saving the state money.

grahambo wrote: »

But where is all the money going!?

Social protection is the biggest taker of that money.

JayZeus wrote: »

If it's a private, fee paying school, they're entitled to set their own requirements for entry. I can think of several such examples and my objections won't apply to them.

You know exactly what I'm getting at though, so let's not get bogged down in argument based on exceptional examples.

No, I wanted clarity. You made a very broad statement about religion and education. I wanted to check whether or not you were happy to have faith specific private schools.

ohnonotgmail

Berserker wrote: »

They get some funding but those schools are saving the state money.

I was under the impression that they got the same subvention per pupil that state schools get. how is that saving the government money?

Phil.x

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the catholic church may own the buildings but the government pay all of the running costs for schools.

Your obviously not a parent.

Hotblack Desiato

grahambo wrote: »

Have they not changed the rules though so as that your kids must attend a local school?
IE: there is catchment area.

No. But schools established in the last few years have to give priority to a defined catchment area and some were doing that anyway.

I wanted to send my kid to St Colmcilles Community School, Knocklyon but I was told it was out of the catchment area (less than 2KM away)
So unless you're paying for schools, you're stuck within your catchment area.

I could be wrong about this btw, maybe my Son is a victim of the barrier

http://www.stcolmcilles.ie/uploads/1/3/9/5/13957485/admissions_policy_for_st_colmcilles_community_school_-_jan_2017.pdf

They prioritise a particular primary in their catchment area (this could be a baptism barrier by the back door) and then their catchment area, sounds like the catchment area was enough to fill it.

ohnonotgmail

Phil.x wrote: »

Your obviously not a parent.

that was a useful reply*.

*I'm aware of the irony.