Faith Schools Segregating Migrant Children

Peregrinus · 07-03-2013 3:59am

Dades wrote: »

You can put your suspicions aside, Peregrinus. The issue of schools and discrimination is openly one of - if not THE biggest gripe regualrs on this forum have with the church/state system in Ireland. It's also at the core of the issue, meaning that posters here are entitled to have a further gripe with the situation within the context of this thread - i.e. that immigrants are also getting the hump from the church. It's called empathy, I think.

Sure. On the Atheist and Agnostic discussion board you’d expect people to be hostile to the idea of faith schools (and not just because their entrance criteria include religious factors). Fair enough.

My point is that concern about social or racial diversity is subordinated to this. The system which at least some posters in this thread call for is one which features two rules; first, the state only supports state schools; it does not provide financial supports to voluntary schools. Secondly, the state schools are strictly secular. If people want a non-secular education, they get it through voluntary schools and they get no state subsidy for it.

Now, by an amazing coincidence, these are the defining features of the US system. And one of the first things we note about the US system - one of the most notorious things about it, in fact - is that these rules did not produce a socially or racially integrated school system; quite the opposite. Integration took court actions; it took the Civil Rights Act; it took bussing; and even all that has had only limited success. Meanwhile many systems which accommodate faith schools - e.g. the British - are, on the whole, more culturally and racially integrated than the US system.

The truth is that the correlation between religious integration on the one hand and social/cultural/ethnic integration on the other is actually pretty weak, and is sometimes negative. You’d expect somebody who genuinely cared about social and racial integration to notice this. But nobody in this thread did, until I pointed it out. Hence my suspicion that concerns about social and racial integration are really only of interest in so far as they can be colourably pressed into service to argue for secular public education. And, when claims to this effect are not subjected to any critical scrutiny, they can always be colourably pressed into service.

Brian Shanahan · 07-03-2013 10:52am

jank wrote: »

Take full ownership of the grounds, buildings, capital and all assets owned by the schools.

Easy, just tell the church, "we paid for all this already, we have the receipts kept, now **** off"

Dades · 07-03-2013 11:47am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Now, by an amazing coincidence, these are the defining features of the US system. And one of the first things we note about the US system - one of the most notorious things about it, in fact - is that these rules did not produce a socially or racially integrated school system; quite the opposite. Integration took court actions; it took the Civil Rights Act; it took bussing; and even all that has had only limited success. Meanwhile many systems which accommodate faith schools - e.g. the British - are, on the whole, more culturally and racially integrated than the US system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_school#Issues_about_faith_schools_in_the_UK

I think the only thing we can agree on here is that no system is perfect. Even if we take religion out of the equation then class becomes the issue. But taking at least one inequality out the system has to be a good thing.

Bannasidhe · 07-03-2013 11:49am

jank wrote: »

Take full ownership of the grounds, buildings, capital and all assets owned by the schools.

All State schools should be the property of the State.

It is an absolute nonsense that in many parts of the country the only available schools - whose costs are met by the State - are under the control of an International organisation who central ethos is in conflict with the Constitution of the State.

What is the cost of this to our society?

PopePalpatine · 07-03-2013 12:29pm

jank wrote: »

So you have no issue with the state confiscating private property?

I have no issue if it is to help pay the Church's debt to the State.

kylith · 07-03-2013 1:05pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I have no issue if it is to help pay the Church's debt to the State.

Agreed. If I owed the government money they wouldn't hesitate to seize my assets. The RCC owes millions to the government as their part of the compensation to abuse victims, so I don't see why they should be treated any differently.

robindch · 07-03-2013 1:30pm

kylith wrote: »

The RCC owes millions to the government as their part of the compensation to abuse victims, so I don't see why they should be treated any differently.

Just on a point of information, the institutional RCC doesn't owe anybody anything, since it hasn't been convicted of anything, nor has it signed up to any deals, since it's never been prosecuted. The distributed nature of the RCC's organization limits its corporate liability very effectively, although I gather that's being challenged in the USA and no doubt elsewhere.

The organizations that signed up to the liability-limiting compensation deal -- an extraordinarily generous deal for them, which they've since treated with near-total contempt -- are something like eleven or so religious orders. And since they've signed up, most orders have moved the vast majority of their assets into independent trusts where they can't be sequestered without High Court action, and quite possibly an appeal to the Supreme Court. The actions of the former "Christian Brothers" stripping assets into the Edmund Rice Schools' Trust, then whining that they can't pay any money, then demanding cash for an unused, is one of the more eyebrow-raising examples of their grand, careless hypocrisy.

I have absolutely no idea why the Attorney General isn't pursuing the religious orders concerned, as their corporate dishonesty is likely to cost the taxpayer well over one billion euro.

kylith · 07-03-2013 1:31pm

robindch wrote: »

Just on a point of information, the institutional RCC doesn't owe anybody anything, since it hasn't been convicted of anything, nor has it signed up to any deals, since it's never been prosecuted. The distributed nature of the RCC's organization limits its corporate liability very effectively, although I gather that's being challenged in the USA and no doubt elsewhere.

The organizations that signed up to the liability-limiting compensation deal -- an extraordinarily generous deal for them, which they've since treated with near-total contempt -- are something like eleven or so religious orders. And since they've signed up, most orders have moved the vast majority of their assets into independent trusts where they can't be sequestered without High Court action, and quite possibly an appeal to the Supreme Court. The actions of the former "Christian Brothers" stripping assets into the Edmund Rice Schools' Trust, then whining that they can't pay any money, then demanding cash for an unused, is one of the more eyebrow-raising examples of their grand, careless hypocrisy.

I have absolutely no idea why the Attorney General isn't pursuing the religious orders concerned, as their corporate dishonesty is likely to cost the taxpayer well over one billion euro.

Thank you. Always glad for clarification.

Still though, they're a bunch of wankstains.

Bannasidhe · 07-03-2013 1:40pm

kylith wrote: »

Thank you. Always glad for clarification.

Still though, they're a bunch of wankstains.

They have less integrity than a wankstain.

Eramen · 07-03-2013 5:03pm

kylith wrote: »

In a secular country school enrolment would be on a first come, first served basis, and religious instruction would be done outside of school time. The schools would have no excuse for turning away those it found undesirable, and a more inclusive Ireland could be forged.

Looking at examples of secular countries where religion has been outlawed/strongly suppressed we can see that 'education' was in fact not conducted on a 'first come, first served' basis nor in an 'inclusive' manner as you are implying it would happen in these secular societies. I don't know where you're getting this idea from, but I'd wager perhaps from the momentarily popular ideologies (egalitarian social progress etc) that are the bedrock of the culture of the modern West.

'First come, first serve' is a silly way of conducting education and learning, as talents, merit, and ability of individuals are made irrelevant - so as to accommodate an 'all-inclusive under-education' for all students where all traces of talent are sidelined. Everyone is not equally capable of receiving a 'mainstream education' of lecturing and standard testing, as peoples ability is different.

Standards have been dropping continuously as to accommodate people who are patently unable to compete or progress at high levels, unable to be part of productive learning in certain fields of studies and work. We are seeing universal 'dumbing-down', because as common sense will tell you, the only point that people can be completely equal in learning or anywhere else is at the lowest level of understanding. And this base level is the 'new standard' of modern state-sponsored education.

Undesirable policy is having undesirable effects, and dare we call is 'progress', and people dance in the streets at the abysmal thing we call 'state/college education' - which actually entitles you intellectually-speaking to not very much at all.

So yes, there are undesirables. We either desire to be fruitful in our learning or we don't, and this will naturally disqualify some people. These people can be very useful elsewhere in society, but not in a situation where education is a means to certain skills or work features.

This kind of discrimination is intelligence. We discriminate between things of different and unequal value all the time, such as what we eat, McDonald vs a balanced bean-salad, obviously of different value.. It requires our discrimination to be understood. We do this all the time, life is based on discrimination: what we do with our time, what job we work, what friends we have, what partner we choose to romance.

"Forging an inclusive Ireland" is talk of political science, not education. We should wish to build better people, in education and elsewhere, and to do this we must attract the most suitable people into these fields of learning. We can't accept everyone when we have limited resources, or when people are inherently of different value when we consider them in relation to their education.

Why have atheists fallen into an understanding of reality that has overtly politically Fabian-marxist, unscientific, mediocre, and counter-productive? Only people who watch copious amounts of tv and believed everything they heard in politically-charged modules at college worry about 'inclusiveness'. I worry about getting the job done, and doing it to our very best. Talent before politics!

Eramen · 07-03-2013 5:26pm

In any case I believe we can benefit from a solution which can correct all of the problems of so-called 'discrimination' in schools.

Look at much of Asia, the Middle East, as well as S. America. - Private schooling is the norm. It's cheap, convenient, and very effective, because just about every child in the former continents attends one.

The satisfactory resolution to this question is a contract between school/teacher and student, where both parties accept in each other the assets and abilities of the other. In this way political 'discrimination' is avoided but intellectual and ability discrimination - seeking out the best teachers and students for the educational role in question - is fully retained. Also the parties can agree on the school-student ethos, whether religious or not.

In this way only the best teachers gain the important positions. Teachers must actually be able to teach. Students must actually have talent.

In the OP this is not a question of religion.. it's a question of people imposing their political beliefs on education, 'Everyone should be accepted'. Why should they? Besides your political ideas? Because we're all equal? It's a nonsense.

Thankfully even in NA and Europe we are slowly moving away from the rock-bottom, irrelevant state-sponsored education which chronically turns out people who can't even read or carry out arithmetic to a decent level.

Maybe in time our children will actually gain a well-rounded education, and have a life-long love of learning when the state stops prattling on what they should and shouldn't have to know. After it's been dismantled state teachers can actually go into the real world of teaching.

Paramite Pie · 07-03-2013 5:45pm

Gumbi wrote: »

Hardly. How would it be fair to teach Catholicism I a class where perhaps half present are Catholics. A smattering more are Christian (some other sect), and the rest are unbelievers as of other minority religions. How is that fair?

While I'm not sure about Primary schools but in my Secondary school, non Catholic students got a free period while we had to go to our Christian Doctrine class.... I remember being very jealous of them!!

Although this was before Religion became a Junior Cert subject. Although we did watch a documentary on the life of the Buddha and got to practice Buddhist meditation for a few classes despite the fact that it was a Catholic school.

Brian Shanahan · 08-03-2013 10:46am

Eramen wrote: »

Looking at examples of secular countries where religion has been outlawed/strongly suppressed

Considering your total lack of knowledge of secularism, which is the tolerance of all religions, not the suppressing of them, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your arguments.

But I will leave you with this fact, it is invariably the religious nations which outlaw and suppres religion, as they cannot bear to have modes of thought or expression which is not under their specific control.

Eramen · 08-03-2013 1:11pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Considering your total lack of knowledge of secularism, which is the tolerance of all religions, not the suppressing of them, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your arguments.

Supposedly - but any person who observes the world with honesty doesn't come to that conclusion. To say that secularism or that all secular societies is perfect vision of itself, and in its practice, is not accurate or par with the reality. Imagine I said that in a Christian society, only Christianity is practiced, and no other religion or irreligious, I'd be dead wrong. Similarly secular societies do not tolerate all religions.

Don't bother, I'll leave you ponder dictionary definitions and popular assumptions.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But I will leave you with this fact, it is invariably the religious nations which outlaw and suppres religion, as they cannot bear to have modes of thought or expression which is not under their specific control.

Secular and religious societies are both suppressive. Are you worried about 'inclusiveness'?

MrPudding · 08-03-2013 1:17pm

jank wrote: »

How much would it cost the state to nationalise all the schools in Ireland. I am serious here!

Well, what would the costs be? Not asking for figures, just asking for the line items that would have to be paid.

MrP

MrPudding · 08-03-2013 1:18pm

robindch wrote: »

Just on a point of information, the institutional RCC doesn't owe anybody anything, since it hasn't been convicted of anything, nor has it signed up to any deals, since it's never been prosecuted. The distributed nature of the RCC's organization limits its corporate liability very effectively, although I gather that's being challenged in the USA and no doubt elsewhere.

The recent refusal of the Supreme Court in the UK is, perhaps, an indication that the institution of the RCC may very well owe something in the near future. Hopefully.

MrP

Bannasidhe · 08-03-2013 1:30pm

Eramen wrote: »

Supposedly - but any person who observes the world with honesty doesn't come to that conclusion. To say that secularism or that all secular societies is perfect vision of itself, and in its practice, is not accurate or par with the reality. Imagine I said that in a Christian society, only Christianity is practiced, and no other religion or irreligious, I'd be dead wrong. Similarly secular societies do not tolerate all religions.

Don't bother, I'll leave you ponder dictionary definitions and popular assumptions.

Secular and religious societies are both suppressive. Are you worried about 'inclusiveness'?

Care to enlighten us as to exactly which secular societies you are referring to?

France?
Japan?
Sweden?
Australia?
Austria?

PopePalpatine · 08-03-2013 1:32pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to enlighten us as to exactly which secular societies you are referring to?

France?
Japan?
Sweden?
Australia?
Austria?

The Soviet Union, of course. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 08-03-2013 1:35pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The Soviet Union, of course. :rolleyes:

plus China and North Korea no doubt.

jank · 08-03-2013 2:59pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Easy, just tell the church, "we paid for all this already, we have the receipts kept, now **** off"

Yes, great to post on the Internet but there is a thing called property rights which is protected under the constitution. If you really really want to play that game (I don't ) then how much does the state owe religious organisations for the past 250 years for providing education and health services?

jank · 08-03-2013 3:02pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All State schools should be the property of the State.

It is an absolute nonsense that in many parts of the country the only available schools - whose costs are met by the State - are under the control of an International organisation who central ethos is in conflict with the Constitution of the State.

What is the cost of this to our society?

I don't nessesarily disagree with this but the church will have to be bought out so to speak. All other talk is just hot air and populist grandstanding.

jank · 08-03-2013 3:04pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I have no issue if it is to help pay the Church's debt to the State.

Confiscating property cause its popular is not the road to go down.

Eramen · 08-03-2013 3:18pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to enlighten us as to exactly which secular societies you are referring to?

France?
Japan?
Sweden?
Australia?
Austria?

There are many, many states, who claim to be secular (which is all secularism really is), but who attack certain religions or lack of.

France and the USA are held to be nominally secular, yet Islam is demonized routinely with the intruments of influence and power, such as popular media and their own state and intelligence departments. That is Muslims are unfairly treated, targeted and spied on, because of of their religion and identity. This has manifested in the extreme with torture and illegal acts of the state on these people.

Also the Jews have received special treatment in the USA concerning their holidays and festivals with the White-house sponsoring events of a Jewish nature (refusing to do the same for other religions).

Turkey, also nominally secular, the state is busy itself using Islam to influence politics in relation to the Kurds. This amounts to a promotion of Islam is a secular society.

India - nominally secular, one probably has not even the need to explain.. Hinduism is actively promoted, Islam actively sidelined.

Anyway, these are a very small few - I don't have to time to name and shame every single one. If one has a brain the truth of secular society unravels before our eyes. Secularism is essence is the demotion of all gods, to be dually replaced with the God of money, convenience and brave new world ignorance.

I don't believe in your coming utopia, sorry.

Bannasidhe · 08-03-2013 3:21pm

jank wrote: »

Yes, great to post on the Internet but there is a thing called property rights which is protected under the constitution. If you really really want to play that game (I don't ) then how much does the state owe religious organisations for the past 250 years for providing education and health services?

250 years?

Where did you get that figure from?

I would be very interested to see what Catholic organisations were providing educational and health services in 1763. I assume you have some links for this?

Of course you do realise that we have had several different 'states' since then so I fail to see what education/health provision in the Kingdom of Ireland/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/ The Irish Free State has to do with our current republic...
It's like arguing that France in 2013 should allow what happened under the Ancien Regime to determine current policy.

Bannasidhe · 08-03-2013 3:24pm

Eramen wrote: »

There are many, many states, who claim to be secular (which is all secularism really is), but who attack certain religions or lack of.

France and the USA are held to be nominally secular, yet Islam is demonized routinely with the intruments of influence and power, such as popular media and their own state and intelligence departments. That is Muslims are unfairly treated, targeted and spied on, because of of their religion and identity. This has manifested in the extreme with torture and illegal acts of the state on these people.

Also the Jews have received special treatment in the USA concerning their holidays and festivals with the White-house sponsoring events of a Jewish nature (refusing to do the same for other religions).

Turkey, also nominally secular, the state is busy itself using Islam to influence politics in relation to the Kurds. This amounts to a promotion of Islam is a secular society.

India - nominally secular, one probably has not even the need to explain.. Hinduism is actively promoted, Islam actively sidelined.

Anyway, these are a very small few - I don't have to time to name and shame every single one. If one has a brain the truth of secular society unravels before our eyes. Secularism is essence is the demotion of all gods, to be dually replaced with the God of money, convenience and brave new world ignorance.

I don't believe in your coming utopia, sorry.

Linkys?

Coming Utopia? Nah mate - that's a book by Tom More. It was published in 1516.

jank · 08-03-2013 3:27pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

250 years?

Where did you get that figure from?

I would be very interested to see what Catholic organisations were providing educational and health services in 1763. I assume you have some links for this?

Of course you do realise that we have had several different 'states' since then so I fail to see what education/health provision in the Kingdom of Ireland/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/ The Irish Free State has to do with our current republic...
It's like arguing that France in 2013 should allow what happened under the Ancien Regime to determine current policy.

How long has the Catholic Church been in Ireland were they not providing health an education services?

Eramen · 08-03-2013 3:28pm

At the end of the day secularism is irrelevant because is based on false precepts - that all modes of religious or irreligious belief are equal or at least deserve this in law - which is not true.

It's another vain attempt at 'making everything, everyone, every item equal'. It smacks of self-delusion, as we all know every person and what they produce in any sense is of different value.

Secularists are not clued in to reality, and the only reason they believe that all objects are equal is because sitting in their lavish, comfortable world of relative safety in the west, they've never had to set foot in the land of reality and have never had to stare it int he face. What is ironic is that the secular, phoney 'liberal', fabian-socialist west is now collapsing under the weight of the lie of equality, and mercifully so!

It reminds of Karl Marx, a drunkard who had sat his whole life in the royal British library, who had never once set foot in the countryside to see the farmers and peasants who he supposedly was going to 'free'. Thus he made up a wonderful system of make-believe which ended quite badly.

Take heed.

robindch · 08-03-2013 3:37pm

Eramen wrote: »

Secularism is essence is the demotion of all gods, to be dually replaced with the God of money, convenience and brave new world ignorance.

No, secularism is the legal and social separation of church and state so that a state's citizens are free to acquire and hold, without state interference, the religious beliefs of their choice.

Don't let that fact stand in your way though

Bannasidhe · 08-03-2013 3:48pm

jank wrote: »

How long has the Catholic Church been in Ireland were they not providing health an education services?

Prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Ireland in 1542 there was no 'Ireland' in the terms you mean. There was 90 independent tuatha who happen to exist on an island called Ireland where each clan (or 'race' as they referred to themselves) made their own arrangements.
Formal education was provided by the distinctly secular Brehon Schools - not the Catholic church.

The Roman Catholic church had no official role in the Kingdom of Ireland due to the new King of Ireland having broken with Rome...you may have heard of Henry VIII - t'was Fat Hal himself who 'united' and created this 'country' called Ireland and it was definitely not Roman Catholic. I would be interested to know how and where the Roman Catholic church managed to provide these educational/health services when all of it's property was confiscated....

You made a definitive statement. You have been called upon to provide proof of the Catholic Church providing educational/health services in the 1760s during the most repressive years of the Penal Laws. I await your proof...

You might also be good enough to answer my question as to what relevance events in previous incarnations of the State has to do with policy in the current incarnation.

Eramen · 08-03-2013 3:51pm

robindch wrote: »

No, secularism is the legal and social separation of church and state so that a state's citizens are free to acquire and hold, without state interference, the religious beliefs of their choice.

Don't let that fact stand in your way though

A-huh. You will have to excuse my hyperbole, but I was referring to the demoting of ethical, ideal and natural values that accompanied the rise of secularism, equality and enlightenment [non]thinking - which then lead to a material-utilitarian conception of reality.

Man has thus become a legal fiction, devoid of his human characteristics, in a world cosmology of an economic nature, of 'tax-payers', 'consumers', 'workers' et al, all working in a world of exaggerated equality, social-fantasy and pacified by celebrity and entertainment escapism. This is what I mean by the 'God of money', as material abundance has become the only thing of importance in the modern west and the sole purpose of the existence of nation-states (international trade).

In any case, wouldn't a person with a respectable IQ be able to see past that definition and comprehend the reality? Of course. One wonders why you dare not see past it.

Definitions and labels are all well and good, but they don't often represent the situation.

'It's grand', I don't let your ideology get in my face, the 2% of silly white westerners get increasingly easy to ignore because the rest of us have our feet firmly on the ground.

Faith Schools Segregating Migrant Children

Comments