Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Why is Ruari Quinn so anti-Catholic?

1568101121

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    raymon wrote: »
    We owe the church nothing. The church were infiltrated by perverted bullies and deviants.

    The Clergy represent about one per cent of the church. I am not aware of any "deviant" Bishop i.e. Child sexual abuser. I am aware of probably hundreds of priests over 50 years. That's hundreds in hundreds of thousands. And they wer not working together. Less than 0.1 per cent Hardly an "infiltration"?
    In fact the church should sell up their mansions and compensate the victims of abuse properly

    Different issue and already dealt with elsewhere.


    Nodin wrote: »
    The census collects data on whether people want "ethos education"?
    Could I have a link to those figures please?

    Yo were given them above. the census records how many are of religion and how many atheist. about one or two percent are atheist. Other surveys record the interest in having religious schools.

    kerash wrote: »
    Those who carried out the horrific abuse were members of the catholic church and they are wholly and solely responsible for their evils.


    Wrong! One per cent of those who abused Children were Catholic clergy. the other 99 per cent were not clergy. When it come to abuse stats worldwide
    catholic clergy have a lower rate than other Christians
    Christians have a lower rate then non Christians
    clergy have a total of about one percent of abusers whereas NON clergy make up the other 99 per cent of abusers.

    So of 1000 abusers about 1-9 are catholic clergy, about 10-20 Protestant clergy about 20 -30 other clergy and about 900-950 non clergy.

    The church ...have actively campaigned against integrated secular education

    In fact the Archbishop of Dublin for years has been saying the opposite!
    sending home anti-divorce pamphlets with children in the past and in general have proved themselves unworthy of the role granted to them.

    Catholics still don't have divorce or view it as good for society. The Anglican Church always had it so don't assume they are all the same. Divorce by the way is about the right to remarry.
    But that's all just semantics, if you want to bring up your child as a delusional sky fairy worshipper that's you business however you shouldn't be allowed to force other people's children to listen to your legends nor to take them any more seriously than they would Odin or Ra.

    If enough of them want an "Odin and RA" high school then they are entitled to it as well.
    Are we a republic or a theocracy?
    A republic where the people come first and the law supports their right to have ethos schools.
    How should non-Catholic rural citizens be accommodated?

    In whatever school they attend. they are not forced to attend religious instruction in a catholic school. If enough of them come together they are entitled to set up their own school.
    And if your sky fairy is so much better than all the others, why do you need to own the school system for that to be apparent to the next generation?

    They dont. That have stated they want ot give property away. their main concern is children getting well managed schools and not a bunch of do-gooder atheists dumping on the school when they have got their worth from it.
    Lie to you own children in your own home, but leave the rest of us out of it like a good lad.

    The "rest of us" being the one percent of people who don't believe or the itr being the 99 per cent who do believe?


    raymon wrote: »
    Perverts abusing kids and the church cover ups, money cant repair the damage the church caused.

    But people like you can keep spreading the myth that it is all clergy and not the 99 percent of non clergy who are abusers?

    What contribution are you referring to ..??...... the beatings or the rapes.

    By the 99 per cent of abusers that are not clergy?


    I don't think anyone would really say the CC made no positive contribution to where we are today as a country in terms of education, but that doesn't mean we owe it to them to allow them to be in charge of education forever.

    Indeed not! Which is what the constitution says. when 95 per cent are atheist then they will be entitled not to hear about god at school and the two per cent of believers will be entitled to a school wherever enough come together to have a catchment. where did Minister Quinn s children go to School I wonder? Blackrock like himself?
    The nature of secular schooling in my knowledge is that religion is not taught and you are not allowed to show what religion you are, like in France. Thats not state enforced atheism, thats we are here to learn and thats it. We aren't here to learn about a god that may or may not exist as if he were fact and base our entire ethos around a moral code that only suits x religion.

    A moral code of "there is a god and good flows naturally from God" is common to all believers. Any "there is no God. it is all a fairy tale " society was a mess.
    What people never seem to take into account is that its irrelevant what percentage of the country is Catholic, there are so many groups that are excluded and oppressed by the catholic church that its unfair that they get to run everything.

    LOL Now you are claiming the Catholic Church not only are running Protestant Schools but they are also running Islamic Jewish and Educate together Schools!
    We should have a secular system not because of who is what religion in this country, but because its the right thing to do.

    Because you believe there is no God. But only one percent of Irish people are atheist! Apparently your one percent are "right" and everyone else should be forced to do as you wish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ISAW wrote: »
    Because you believe there is no God. But only one percent of Irish people are atheist! Apparently your one percent are "right" and everyone else shouldl be forced to do as you wish.

    Atheism and secularism are different things, genius.

    Have you got me on ignore? Are my posts invisible?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    So if I lived in a small town and I'm an atheist I'm screwed then? You don't need to shut down all faith schools, you just need to ask them to run them in a more secular way.

    Are they faith schools any more then if they are run in a "secular way"?

    If you live in a small town and you are an atheist one will need to determine if there is enough demand for a school first. If not, there should be alternatives in a close enough distance.

    I would suggest that at the very least 30% are secular, but I think parents should have the right to choose to bring their child to a faith school.
    This isn't about supply and demand anyway, its down to that religious moral codes are generally prejudiced towards certain minorities and have a habit of only telling students information they see fit to tell them. Thats why we have such a crap sex ed and anti-homophobic bullying policies in this country.

    Now we're being honest.

    By the by, my school was excellent at standing up to homophobic bullying and presented sex-ed in an impartial manner and it was a faith school. Don't let that skew your prejudices though.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Nodin wrote: »


    Wild speculation.

    FFS Read trhe link I provided three lined above your comment
    Atheist Ireland believes that a secular education system is essential to the building of an ethical and secular society. One of the most powerful ways in which religion maintains its hold on society is by teaching children fantastic tales as truth when they are at an intellectually formative age.
    You seem to be saying that the census says that "most people want ethos education". Could you link back to those figures please?

    No I'm saying most people are believers. Believers want religion in schools and they don't want God removed from society! They don't believe a society without God is more ethical. Godless atheistic societies produced nothing except mass carnage!

    Go on tell me of the great atheistic civilizations would you?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    So if I lived in a small town and I'm an atheist I'm screwed then?

    Or if you are a Muslim or a Sikh or a Jew. Unless you can get about say 100 atheists to live in the area who have children and want a school which is atheist or Islamic or Jewish or whatever. Otherwise you will have to go to the local school which is probably going to be Christian but might not be. You could be a Muslim or atheist and go and you will not have to attend religion classes.
    You don't need to shut down all faith schools, you just need to ask them to run them in a more secular way.

    and they will say "why should we? Why don't your lot take over this school and run it yourselves?"
    This isn't about supply and demand anyway, its down to that religious moral codes are generally prejudiced towards certain minorities and have a habit of only telling students information they see fit to tell them.

    All of a sudden you are an expert on schools you say you want to know nothing about and not have?
    Thats why we have such a crap sex ed and anti-homophobic bullying policies in this country.

    LOL! THe church are promoting bullying of homosexuals now are they? Talk about spreading mythical fairy tales.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Dave! wrote: »
    Atheism and secularism are different things, genius.

    As are laicité and anticlericalism sub genius.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭caseyann


    The majority are catholic in majority of areas.
    Kids will be even pissed off about this and will create more segregation and dislike of other religions in Ireland i believe.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    caseyann wrote: »
    The majority are catholic in majority of areas.
    Kids will be even pissed off about this and will create more segregation and dislike of other religions in Ireland i believe.

    Unlike atheistic regimes it is not the policy of the Church to suppress those who don't believe as they do! In fact the church has offered to assist atheists Muslims etc. The church is around for the long term form the people and not just till they get what they can out of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ISAW wrote: »
    As are laicité and anticlericalism sub genius.
    Feel free to spell out your point there. The United States has a secular education system, yet it's one of the most religious societies in the world. Secularism and atheism are completely different things. Ruairi Quinn is advocating a move towards a more secular education system (actually a more diverse and inclusive, multi-cultural system; not even total secularism as far as I can tell). All of your bluster about how Atheist Ireland want to rid society of religion, therefore we can expect the Blueshirts to introduce state-enforced atheism, is completely irrelevant. That's not the policy of this government.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yo were given them aboive. the census records how many are of religion and how many atheist. aBout one or two percent are atheist. Other surveys record the interest in having religious schools.

    The census data does not contain any statement that would or could be used to back up the statement that "most people" want "ethos education".
    ISAW wrote: »
    FFS Read trhe link I provided three lined above your comment
    !.

    Theres nothing in your quote to back up your statement. At all.

    Do you know what "secular" means?

    ISAW wrote: »
    No I'm saying most people are believers. Believers want religion in schools and they don't want God removed from society! They don't believe a society without God is more ethical. Godless atheistic societies produced nothing except mass carnage!.


    You've no data whatsoever to back up that claim.

    This thread isn't about the removal of religion from society, nor is the removal of religion from schools intrinsically linked to such a project.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Ok, a lot happened in the few hours I was away, but it seems to me that people are getting athiesm and secularism mixed up.

    Bascially, as far as I know, the idea is to being religion out of schools. All public schools. This is a complete break between education and church, i.e. secularism.

    No one is arguing that schools denounce religion, i.e. promote the belief that God does not exisst. Not even Deputy Quinn. Those of you who think he is, need to do some research and come back with a definite link to a statement he made promoting such a belief.

    TO the indivisual points.
    Nhead wrote: »
    Did the RCC excommunicate him during the war?

    No, he died a catholic. I'm not sure he was all that bothered. Anyway, point is irrelvant as we're not talking about catholics v athiests in history.

    hatz7 wrote: »
    lol, the church has done a tremendous job of educating Irish people through the years, the cheek of you.
    Remember when this state was first founded and it couldn't afford to run the schools, the church took up the role.
    They are still doing a great job.

    your saying that our great and good politicians via the Irish civil service (that wouldn't organize a piss up in a brewery) can provide a better system than what we have now????

    Because make no mistake those politicians and esteemed civil servants will have to get involved in any fundamental changes in the system, such as the one mentioned in this thread.

    Going by your post, answer that.

    better the devil you know ;)

    The state is doing a good job now from what I know. As I said to you earlier, the state sets the syallabus, exams and trains teachers.

    What is the RCC's stance on education and what are the specific benefits of it rather than a secular system?

    ISAW wrote: »
    I don't know whether the fact that Quinn Bacik and Gilmore and De Rossa as well I think are atheist have anything to do with it. But Quinn is arguing that the church should lose 50 per cent of Schools for starters. The Church agrees that 98 per cent is too high but I think vacating half of them is a bit much. But the real question is whether Labnour want to remove all funding for all ethos schools and the 50 per cent target ios justy a nominal stopping point.

    I would hope so. Certainly, they should not be allowed to discriminate entry to non-catholics. I don't know if the practice of requesting a baptism cert is still in opperation, but if it is, then all statefunding should be withdrawn from any school practicing.

    Also, all parents should be allowed to pull their children out of religious classes and sacraments. Regarding the later, that should most certainly be done outside of school.
    red17 wrote: »
    Ruari a confessed non believer first minister out of the blocks with anti-Catholic agenda.Look at the mess of state schools in the U.K. people move house in order to be near Catholic schools

    emphasies my two points:

    1) Where does Deptury Quinn's faith or lack thereof come into play?

    2) What specifically are the reaons for promoting Catholic-run education?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    Maybe this unfortunate headline gives an unconscious clue on why it's best to separate church and state:

    iXSF1.jpg


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Dave! wrote: »
    Ruairi Quinn is not a member of Atheist Ireland. AI are a lobby group just like any other, I'm sure Deputy Quinn shares some of their goals and doesn't share others.

    http://www.atheist.ie/2011/02/canvass-for-ivana-bacik-and-ruairi-quinn-saturday-19-february/
    On Saturday week, 19 February, Atheist Ireland members will be spending two hours in the morning canvassing and dropping leaflets for Ivana Bacik in Dun Laoghaire, and two hours in the afternoon canvassing and dropping leaflets for Ruairi Quinn in Dublin South East.

    These are the two members of the outgoing Oireachtas who have been most supportive on secular issues since Atheist Ireland was formed two years ago

    http://www.atheist.ie/2010/03/ivana-bacik-at-ucc-atheists/
    This is a joint event Atheist society and Labour Youth society
    The Minister for Education has expressed a desire to move patronage of schools away from the Catholic Church. AFAIK he hasn't expressed any desire to rid society of religious influence.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0719/1224275018710.html
    Ms Bacik, herself an atheist, said there was a good deal of support among members of the Oireachtas to separate the church from the State and that, even though many might not publicly admit it, there were a number of atheists among the parliamentary ranks
    Therefore maybe you can stick to the point and stop arguing against a strawman. The United States has a secular school system, yet is one of the most religious societies in the world.

    Ireland IS a secular country. In the US securality is interpreted as "no tax funding for Schools who have religion in them" In Ireland it isn't! Ireland and Australia are still secular countries with good education systems but also with religion in schools and tax money going to those schools.

    If Labour want to withdraw all State funding to all fee paying schools let them say so! I'll bet they won't because their smoked salmon socialism would mitigate against it because the Middle Classes in Dublin where they have done well in the last election will lynch them
    come the next election.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Dave! wrote: »
    Feel free to spell out your point there. The United States has a secular education system, yet it's one of the most religious societies in the world.

    AS does Ireland and as Is Ireland.

    In the US secularism means "no tax support for any school with any mention of God"
    I have already pointed out why that came about.
    In Ireland and Australia wher they have religion in schools they are still secular countries but they support the right of people to have Church involvment or not to have it if that is what the people want. The people don't want atheist schools.
    Secularism and atheism are completely different things. Ruairi Quinn is advocating a move towards a more secular education system (actually a more diverse and inclusive, multi-cultural system; not even total secularism as far as I can tell).

    Rauri Quinn is saying he wants 50 per cent of Primary schools to be managed by groups who do not have any religious involvment.
    What is the big picture? It is that no school should have state support in tax money if they have a religious ethos. But if that was the Case rauri Quinn or his children would not have get the education they got in the first place. And the Middle Classes of south Dublin are going to hammer Labour if they actually tell the truth and say they want no state support for religious denominations in education.

    If that is what you mean by Secular then say it!
    All of your bluster about how Atheist Ireland want to rid society of religion, therefore we can expect the Blueshirts to introduce state-enforced atheism, is completely irrelevant. That's not the policy of this government.

    Do Labour believe in having no tax money funding any religious involvment in education? Is that what you mean by "secular education"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,450 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    jahalpin wrote: »
    Ever since he was apponted Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn has been doing everything possible to undermine the Catholic church in Ireland

    The vast majority of the population of this country are Catholic and most of these would want their children to have First Communion and Confirmation in school.

    There are several primary and secondary schools in the country under the partonage of the Church of Ireland, however, he doesn't seem to be going after these in any way, this doesn't seem fair

    Why is Deputy Quinn so anti-Catholic? and what are Fine Gael's views on this?

    When was the last time you went to confession?

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Nodin wrote: »
    The census data does not contain any statement that would or could be used to back up the statement that "most people" want "ethos education".

    Yes it does!

    It shows

    1. About 90 per cent of Ireland are religious
    2. about one percent of Ireland are atheist.

    Put it this way suppose

    1. about 90 per cent of Ireland are Fianna Fail voters
    2. About one per cent of Ireland are Communist Party voters

    when it comes to an election do you really think that 1 and 2 above would indicate that most people want communism?

    People believe in God. The vast majority of them.

    In the US or France most people go to state Schools and they also believe in God but just because they have evolved this system does not mean we should copy it. In the Us they also have abortion and the death penalty. We don't copy them because the are more ethical or secular systems. In the US they have Health Care and Social Welfare which is not as generous as in Ireland. Should we also copy that if we are copying their education model?
    Theres nothing in your quote to back up your statement. At all.

    the stats have been provided.
    The Blaine Amendments owe their name to James G. Blaine, who in 1875, as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed a U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting states from funding religious education. After Blaine's proposed amendment failed to become part of the U.S. Constitution, 36 states passed their own constitutional amendments barring state funding of religious organizations, including religious schools. These state constitutional amendments are collectively known as the Blaine Amendments.

    In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court held in Bush v. Holmes that Gov. Jeb Bush's voucher program violated the state constitution. This April, the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission placed two proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution on the November ballot. One initiative would repeal Florida's Blaine Amendment and the other would authorize Florida to create a new voucher program. So these two amendments, if passed, would effectively overrule the Florida Supreme Court decision. In June, several groups filed a lawsuit challenging the commission's placement of these initiatives on the ballot.

    n Zelman v. Simmons-Harris(2002), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Ohio voucher program that gave state funding to low-income parents, allowing them to use the funding to send their children to any private school participating in the program. Even though the vast majority of the participating private schools were religious, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause permitted the program because parents could choose freely among participating religious schools, participating private secular schools and public schools. By offering parents such choices, the state had remained religiously neutral. But after the Zelman decision, a lower court in Florida decided that a very similar voucher program in that state violated the Florida Blaine Amendment. The Florida court explained that although the program was allowed under the Establishment Clause, it violated the state's Blaine Amendment, which forbids Florida from directly or indirectly funding religious schools. The Florida Supreme Court later decided, in Bush v. Holmes, that the program was unconstitutional for a different reason; according to the Florida high court, the program violated the state constitution's guarantee of public education.

    Locke v. Davey(2004) involved a Washington state policy of not giving state scholarships to people studying religion at religious schools. The state maintained this policy to comply with its constitution, which contains two provisions (one of which is a Blaine Amendment) prohibiting funding of religious education.

    My point is it is not a clear as you may think in the US either.

    http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Government/restrictions-fullreport.pdf

    See page 16 Ireland comes more than 30 countries below the US in terms of Government restrictions on religion . In terms of social hostility The US comes fourth last of the top
    40 % or countries ( page 25) but Ireland with all its claimed "sectarianism" and claims of The church oppressing others does not even feature!
    Do you know what "secular" means?

    Do you know what "social hostility" and "state control" mean? do you know why the US became the way it is and why the founding fathers tried to back no religion rather that create division? do you really think we should be like the US in every respect or only in the case of not paying any tax money to any Schools which support a belief in God? ( which some states don't follow in any case)

    http://www.kandle.ie/podpress_trac/web/10977/0/Challenge_of_Indifference_MacGreil.mp3
    @4:00 "Secularisation is when religion is totally irrelevant"
    This thread isn't about the removal of religion from society, nor is the removal of religion from schools intrinsically linked to such a project.

    It is about no state funding for any school with religion or a religious ethos as opposed to State funding for atheist schools or schools with no religion or no religious ethos.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    ISAW, lets put this into practical examples shall we.

    I live between Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey, a relatively populous area.

    We are looking for a secondary school for our daughter, as are all the parents of her class mates. Our choices are:

    Loretto which is a catholic school (run by a bigot from what I can gather.
    St Joseph of cluny a catholic girls school.
    St Laurence college run by some weird catholic sect.
    Holy child Killiney. A catholic girls school.
    Holy child sallynoggin. A catholic school, but one that accepts non Catholics.
    Cabinteely community school, which lists the religious (catholic) upbringing as its main mission.

    Do you think this is right? Do you really think that in the 21st century non Catholics should be discriminated in this way? A simple yes or no will do.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    ISAW, lets put this into practical examples shall we.

    I live between Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey, a relatively populous area.

    We are looking for a secondary school for our daughter, as are all the parents of her class mates. Our choices are:

    Loretto which is a catholic school (run by a bigot from what I can gather.
    St Joseph of cluny a catholic girls school.
    St Laurence college run by some weird catholic sect.
    Holy child Killiney. A catholic girls school.
    Holy child sallynoggin. A catholic school, but one that accepts non Catholics.
    Cabinteely community school, which lists the religious (catholic) upbringing as its main mission.

    Do you think this is right? Do you really think that in the 21st century non Catholics should be discriminated in this way? A simple yes or no will do.

    Newpark Comp is in your area; that's multi denom, iirc.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    I would hope so. Certainly, they should not be allowed to discriminate entry to non-catholics. I don't know if the practice of requesting a baptism cert is still in opperation, but if it is, then all statefunding should be withdrawn from any school practicing.

    Schools are allowed have a list and fill the list according to their priorities. If you are not of their ethos you go down the list. If the place is there when they get to a non faith child that child will get the place. But the children of people who are religious are entitled to jump above those who don't in applying for schools. Just as those with siblings or parents going to the school might get preference. Like Rauri Quinn's kids if they go to Blackrock :)
    Also, all parents should be allowed to pull their children out of religious classes and sacraments. Regarding the later, that should most certainly be done outside of school.

    That is allowed and actually is a right. I know of an Opus Dei run school with Muslim kids n it and they have the option to not be there for religion classes or even to attend and not to participate.


    1) Where does Deptury Quinn's faith or lack thereof come into play?

    2) What specifically are the reaons for promoting Catholic-run education?

    1) where Labour politicians have stated there is an atheist agenda which they support? Where Labour say they believe in "secular" meaning "no State money for religious schools"

    2) Catholics want it. What is the reason for supporting a Muslim or atheist education - Muslims want it or atheists want a "no God" school. We can also support an "Educate together" school which may be atheist or may have classes on several religions if the people want that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    old hippy wrote: »
    Newpark Comp is in your area; that's multi denom, iirc.
    Not alone that Newpark was an "old School" Trinity College Cof I Harry Potter type school with "high Table " and gowns etc. which became a comprehensive.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    old hippy wrote: »
    Newpark Comp is in your area; that's multi denom, iirc.

    Which is where me daughter and most of her friends will go. Personally though, I think kids in towns should be able to walk or cycle to school, not walk ten minutes to a train station, take a15 minute train journey and then walk another 20 morning and evening.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    ISAW wrote: »
    Schools are allowed have a list and fill the list according to their priorities. If you are not of their ethos you go down the list. If the place is there when they get to a non faith child that child will get the place. But the children of people who are religious are entitled to jump above those who don't in applying for schools. Just as those with siblings or parents going to the school might get preference. Like Rauri Quinn's kids if they go to Blackrock :)

    Which is apractice that needs to be scrapped if the school wnats to contineue accepting tax funding.
    That is allowed and actually is a right. I know of an Opus Dei run school with Muslim kids n it and they have the option to not be there for religion classes or even to attend and not to participate.

    Which is different, unless the kids were accepted on a first come first served basis.

    I'd be okay with this, as long as any parent has a right to pull their kids from religious clasees.


    Finally, Ruari Quinn's affliation is, again, irrelevant.



    1) where Labour politicians have stated there is an atheist agenda which they support? Where Labour say they believe in "secular" meaning "no State money for religious schools"

    2) Catholics want it. What is the reason for supporting a Muslim or atheist education - Muslims want it or atheists want a "no God" school. We can also support an "Educate together" school which may be atheist or may have classes on several religions if the people want that.[/QUOTE]

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ISAW wrote: »
    http://www.atheist.ie/2011/02/canvass-for-ivana-bacik-and-ruairi-quinn-saturday-19-february/

    http://www.atheist.ie/2010/03/ivana-bacik-at-ucc-atheists/

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0719/1224275018710.html

    Ms Bacik, herself an atheist, said there was a good deal of support among members of the Oireachtas to separate the church from the State and that, even though many might not publicly admit it, there were a number of atheists among the parliamentary ranks

    Figured you'd highlight this, because that would be the intellectually dishonest thing to do.

    That's Atheist Ireland campaigning for Labour, not the other way around. Given that Labour have the most secular agenda of the major parties, of course a secular lobby group is going to support them :confused:

    So basically as I said, the Minister wants to move schools out of Catholic Church patronage, but has no radical atheist agenda beyond that. Great. So you can drop all the crap about Mao and Pol Pot.


    ISAW wrote: »
    Ireland IS a secular country. In the US securality is interpreted as "no tax funding for Schools who have religion in them" In Ireland it isn't! Ireland and Australia are still secular countries with good education systems but also with religion in schools and tax money going to those schools.

    If Labour want to withdraw all State funding to all fee paying schools let them say so! I'll bet they won't because their smoked salmon socialism would mitigate against it because the Middle Classes in Dublin where they have done well in the last election will lynch them
    come the next election.

    I don't think that Labour have any such plans, but I'd be happy to see that happen myself. The state should provide education for all. There should be no compulsion to provide religious indoctrination too. If parents are so eager for their kids to be versed in Catholic (or other) doctrine, they should do it in their own time.
    ISAW wrote: »
    The people don't want atheist schools.

    It's really quite simple -- An atheist school would be one that teaches that there is no god, religion is bullshít, etc. A secular school would be one that does not teach or endorse any particular religion.

    Is there anybody advocating atheist schools? If not, why are you using 'atheist' and 'secular' interchangeably? Being a bit dishonest?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Rauri Quinn is saying he wants 50 per cent of Primary schools to be managed by groups who do not have any religious involvment.

    What is the big picture? It is that no school should have state support in tax money if they have a religious ethos. But if that was the Case rauri Quinn or his children would not have get the education they got in the first place. And the Middle Classes of south Dublin are going to hammer Labour if they actually tell the truth and say they want no state support for religious denominations in education.

    If that is what you mean by Secular then say it!

    Do Labour believe in having no tax money funding any religious involvment in education? Is that what you mean by "secular education"?

    No Labour don't intend withholding state funding for religious schools, just transferring patronage away from the Church for a significant number of them.

    Their policy document says:
    Recommendations of the Forum will form the basis of a White
    Paper for consideration and implementation by the Government to
    ensure that our education system can provide a sufficiently diverse
    number of schools which cater for all religions and none
    . As part of this
    process, parents and the local community should also have a say in
    the patronage of existing and future schools, for example by direct
    ballot.

    Seems like a reasonable objective to me. My guess is that there won't be riots in the streets if the number of Catholic schools is reduced to 50%, because nominally religious people in Ireland don't give enough of a shít about their religion. They barely believe most of the doctrine.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    ISAW, lets put this into practical examples shall we.

    I live between Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey, a relatively populous area.

    We are looking for a secondary school for our daughter, as are all the parents of her class mates. Our choices are:

    Loretto which is a catholic school (run by a bigot from what I can gather.
    St Joseph of cluny a catholic girls school.
    St Laurence college run by some weird catholic sect.
    Holy child Killiney. A catholic girls school.
    Holy child sallynoggin. A catholic school, but one that accepts non Catholics.
    Cabinteely community school, which lists the religious (catholic) upbringing as its main mission.

    Do you think this is right? Do you really think that in the 21st century non Catholics should be discriminated in this way? A simple yes or no will do.

    You missed Rathdown school and Rosemont and St Andrews and Dún Laoghaire Senior and College Holy Child and Dominican Sion Hill
    Rockford Manor
    St Killian's Deutsche Schule
    St Laurence College,

    The are TWO Loretto's by the way.

    [/quote]

    If you have 100 atheists in Dun Laoghaire you should have no problem setting up your own atheist school. The two Labour Candidates who ran for Labour in the election are both atheist and should help you on that. It seems to be there agenda. But when it comes down to it many people only really care about what is in it for them. The Church on the other hand is in it for the long haul and not for the six years it takes to bring a child through secondary. So if you start working on it now you should have it up and running by the time your child has just left secondary. THE church will even support you in getting this project together. I suspect though that when it isn't for your own personal gain and it will only start to work after you don't need it that you will drop the effort. The church however won't drop the effort and will be there in six years time to assist whoever they can provide an education to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    ISAW wrote: »
    The church however won't drop the effort and will be there in six years time to assist whoever they can provide an education to.

    As long as they get to indoctrinate children in those schools, yeah? ;) Will the Church help set up secular schools?

    I'm sure that Educate Together will be here for the long haul BTW, given that their raison d'etre is setting up and running schools.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,803 ✭✭✭edanto


    ISAW wrote: »
    I wuld not DO anything. I am not an authoritarian! They are free to do as they like. and if enough of them want a school they are entitled to state support.

    ISAW, you're a great man/woman for the long answers. I don't have the interest to read them all though, so your powers of convincement may be lost on me.

    Just a few corrections, though. The part I've quoted above isn't true in practise.

    For example, Educate Together schools have not been allowed or funded to open in areas where there are existing Catholic primary schools, only in areas of new growth. So, it's not quite as equal as you say it is.

    And how about second level ET schools? How many of them have been approved and funded by the state as a result of the demand from parents. The answer is none, mainly because of entrenched and backwards zealots in the civil service using their powers to delay the approval of Educate Together as a second level patron.

    Previously in the thread you said that Catholic schools are subject to the equality legislation as regards admission policy. Interesting that you should mention that, because when I read the actual legislation, I found that there is a specific exemption in our equality legislation allowing schools to discriminate based on religion. Only in Ireland.

    I applaud Minister Quinn for what he has set out to achieve.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    edanto wrote: »
    ISAW, you're a great man/woman for the long answers. I don't have the interest to read them all though, so your powers of convincement may be lost on me.

    Just a few corrections, though. The part I've quoted above isn't true in practise.

    For example, Educate Together schools have not been allowed or funded to open in areas where there are existing Catholic primary schools, only in areas of new growth. So, it's not quite as equal as you say it is.

    And how about second level ET schools? How many of them have been approved and funded by the state as a result of the demand from parents. The answer is none, mainly because of entrenched and backwards zealots in the civil service using their powers to delay the approval of Educate Together as a second level patron.

    Previously in the thread you said that Catholic schools are subject to the equality legislation as regards admission policy. Interesting that you should mention that, because when I read the actual legislation, I found that there is a specific exemption in our equality legislation allowing schools to discriminate based on religion. Only in Ireland.

    I applaud Minister Quinn for what he has set out to achieve.

    It's one of Labour's policies to get ET patronage of secondary schools


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    ISAW wrote: »
    You missed Rathdown school and Rosemont and St Andrews and Dún Laoghaire Senior and College Holy Child and Dominican Sion Hill
    Rockford Manor
    St Killian's Deutsche Schule
    St Laurence College,

    The are TWO Loretto's by the way.

    If you have 100 atheists in Dun Laoghaire you should have no problem setting up your own atheist school. The two Labour Candidates who ran for Labour in the election are both atheist and should help you on that. It seems to be there agenda. But when it comes down to it many people only really care about what is in it for them. The Church on the other hand is in it for the long haul and not for the six years it takes to bring a child through secondary. So if you start working on it now you should have it up and running by the time your child has just left secondary. THE church will even support you in getting this project together. I suspect though that when it isn't for your own personal gain and it will only start to work after you don't need it that you will drop the effort. The church however won't drop the effort and will be there in six years time to assist whoever they can provide an education to.

    I'm not an atheist though.

    The department of education is consistently failing people in this country by not providing a freely inclusive accessible education system. The reason for this is because over 95% of schools are run by the RCC.

    And don't kid yourself, the church provides education for purely selfish reasons, not as an act of generosity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 606 ✭✭✭bastados


    I've always liked the man...decent man.

    It should be pointed out that there is a difference between the religious institutions of Ireland that have abused and dehumanised people for far too long and being a roman catholic...I believe Minister Quinn is anti-institution not anti-religious.

    Most Irish have a varying degree of mistrust for these "absolutist" institutions that were build over the decades in this country with tax payer money....it revolted me that FF helped out the churches abusive legalities of recent years with more taxpayer money.

    Quinn is getting things done as far as I'm concerned...FF were beyond caring.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Dave! wrote: »
    Figured you'd highlight this, because that would be the intellectually dishonest thing to do.

    That's Atheist Ireland campaigning for Labour, not the other way around. Given that Labour have the most secular agenda of the major parties, of course a secular lobby group is going to support them :confused:

    I supplied a quote from Bacik saying that ther are politicians who support the atheist agenda but dont want to come out an say it. Don't attribute dishonesty or lack of transparency to me.
    So basically as I said, the Minister wants to move schools out of Catholic Church patronage, but has no radical atheist agenda beyond that. Great. So you can drop all the crap about Mao and Pol Pot.

    So you are saying that the minister and no one in Labour believe that ther should be no state funding for religious schools? They do not believe in "secular" in the US sense? What then is this discussion all about? What is the long term goal?
    I don't think that Labour have any such plans, but I'd be happy to see that happen myself.

    I.e. you don't know. When Quinn says he is totally for state support for ethos schools and he agrees with the principle of tax money being spent in Religious schools I will believe it.
    The state should provide education for all.

    No it should not! People should be free to educate their children at home if they wish.
    There should be no compulsion to provide religious indoctrination too.

    there isn't! In fact the constitution supports the right not to attend religious classes even in religious ethos schools!
    If parents are so eager for their kids to be versed in Catholic (or other) doctrine, they should do it in their own time.

    LOL. If parents want a "no God" schools the state should pay for it and they should not have to have an atheistic education at home but if parents support God they should pay for it themselves at home.
    It's really quite simple -- An atheist school would be one that teaches that there is no god, religion is bullshít, etc. A secular school would be one that does not teach or endorse any particular religion.

    No an ANTIRELIGIOUS school would be one against religion. Yo uare basically saying atheism is against religion when atheists are always saying that it is just an absence of religion.

    Which is it? Is atheism anti religion or is it just the absence of endorsing any religion?

    Not so simple as you made out eh? ;)
    Is there anybody advocating atheist schools? If not, why are you using 'atheist' and 'secular' interchangeably? Being a bit dishonest?


    I provided earlier theproblem of using "secular". The US definition of "no god in schools and no state funding for schools with God" is what you mean by secular isn't it?
    No Labour don't intend withholding state funding for religious schools, just transferring patronage away from the Church for a significant number of them.

    So the Minister (and members of his party) is an atheist and does not believe in God but also believes that the Church are a great organisation and religion should be funded by the State? Ho Chi Quinn apoparently also believes in socialism but international oil companies and banks and capitalist moguls (like the brother Lochlann) are also good and should be funded by society. The problem I have is until he says "I believe Religious ethos schools in principle should be allowed some state funding" I don't know what his (or the other atheist politicians) principles are.
    Seems like a reasonable objective to me. My guess is that there won't be riots in the streets if the number of Catholic schools is reduced to 50%, because nominally religious people in Ireland don't give enough of a shít about their religion. They barely believe most of the doctrine.

    Oh so you represent the opinion of most Catholics now do you? :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement