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

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.

_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.

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.

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?

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.

_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.

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.

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.

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.

Grayson wrote: »

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.

No, I didn't. I've never said that. There are always options, plenty of other options, but what you gain on the swings you might lose on the roundabouts. One way or the other people have to make choices that they believe are in their children's best interests, and if people don't like the choices presented to them, then they are by all means free to petition the current Government for change.

Also what the majority of the population want has never been used to measure the necessity for the divestment of schools or the provision of new schools or which patron body will be granted patronage of any new schools. Much of that decision is influenced by the infrastructure and needs forecast in any given area in Ireland as generally informed by the census, and offered to parents in the proposed area for divestment or development.

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.

I never made that false equivalence in the first place because I know the State doesn't teach any religion, nor is the State required to favour one religion over all others since that was removed from the Constitution some years ago. I didn't mention any of those things you mentioned. What I was referring to is that they're also free to set up their own schools and apply for funding from the State to provide education, the same as any other patron body is also free to do as long as they too meet the criteria required to be considered eligible for funding and patronage of any new or existing schools that are being divested.

_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 = Compulsory Purchase Order

Why would they be purchasing something if they already own it?

i.e. that argument is crap

Grayson

Donald Trump wrote: »

CPO = Compulsory Purchase Order

Why would they be purchasing something if they already own it?

i.e. that argument is crap

The building, not the land. Quite often it's on church land but the building is owned by the state.

Subcomandante Marcos

Donald Trump wrote: »

CPO = Compulsory Purchase Order

Why would they be purchasing something if they already own it?

i.e. that argument is crap

And this is where, much like your namesake, it becomes obvious you're talking about something you don't actually understand.

Sonics2k wrote: »

I don't think you know what discrimination means

Yes I do. And you want to seize property from, and bar from the education system, those with religious beliefs.

Unless you would also be barring from any school, any person not a civil servant? What about Educate together? They run under the patronage of a national company. Do you want to seize those too? Or are you ok with those? I'm guessing it's the latter so your issue is that you want to deny things to people based on religious beliefs. i.e discrimination

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

Yeah......the Hail Mary's might be the least of your problem .............and sure you never know - they might even work and even you out of Limerick.....Might be the only chance you have :pac:

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

And this is where, much like your namesake, it becomes obvious you're talking about something you don't actually understand.

OK genius . Explain to me why the state would CPO something they own?

Grayson wrote: »

The building, not the land. Quite often it's on church land but the building is owned by the state.

No. Either there is a lease on the land or the ownership must be in the name of the institution.

If the government gives a grant to a GAA club to build it's clubhouse, it does not own it.

When it gives money to IRFU to build the Aviva stadium, it does not own it.

If the state *owns* the building and has a leasehold on the land, then it can do whatever the fuck it wants with it for the duration of the lease.

People are just grasping at straws and making excuses here

when my old secondary school was being rebuilt, they fundraised for years and years. I'm sure there was also state money, but the state does not own the building.

Same as if you get a first time biuyers grant. Doesn't mean the state owns your house.

Grayson wrote: »

The building, not the land. Quite often it's on church land but the building is owned by the state.

The state pays for the building of the schools but I'm not sure they own them, if there on diocesan land. It's the bom who maintains and insures the buildings, would adverse possession come into play, similarly the state pays the teachers but the bom employ them.