How to "un-baptize"/ Withdraw affiliation with RCC?

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure than any country 'evidently' or otherwise sees funding religious bodies as progressive (except perhaps some Middle East states), nor should they.

Did you miss the part where I said economically progressive? Or is that elision premeditated so to facilitate a disingenuously glib reply, that avoids addressing any actual point?

Germany can hardly be held up as a progressive example; "Forcing citizens to pay religious tithes for the last hundred years" is hardly a great 21st Century mantra.

I think "religious tithe: tick this box if you no longer wish to be 'forced'" is, as I already said, certainly massive "progress" on how it worked back when the church was running it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Your attitude to "convenience" seems curiously at odds with your attitude about "cost". Or would this be less about any distinction between those, and more an outrage at hypothetical costs and inconveniences to a group you identify with, and an utter lack of empathy with the real costs and inconveniences incurred by those strange weirdos that aren't as comfortable with the status quo?

I'm not sure how my attitude to convenience should relate to my attitude to cost? I'm inconvenienced when I have to make a second trip to the shops to buy bread. I'm outraged when someone takes my money and I can't buy bread. Whether these situations are hypothetical or factual (and I do need to buy bread in fariness), my feelings are the same. Maybe a little stronger if someone actually does decide to take my money.

alaimacerc wrote: »

A say as to what? You mean that by analogy with people's "right" to do no Catholic, think no Catholic but still somehow "be" a Catholic, if public policy is rampantly Catholic, but claims otherwise, it would be rude not to take it at its word?

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here, but if I read it right, if someone (or country) behaves in a fashion that you think is catholic, then they are a catholic, regardless of what they themselves think/say?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Did you miss the part where I said economically progressive? Or is that elision premeditated so to facilitate a disingenuously glib reply, that avoids addressing any actual point?

I didn't think you thought your point turned on the word economically, but; I'm not sure than any country 'evidently' or otherwise sees funding religious bodies as economically progressive, nor should they, since it doesn't appear to benefit the state economy; if anything the state has to invest resources in collecting and disbursing the tax, so for a state without a church tax, implementing one would appear to be a regressive move? But I'd be interested in what you think would be economically progressive about it?

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think "religious tithe: tick this box if you no longer wish to be 'forced'" is, as I already said, certainly massive "progress" on how it worked back when the church was running it.

You think the State collecting a tithe on behalf of a religion today is better than the church collecting a tithe centuries ago? I think neither enforcing a tithe is better again.

ninja900 wrote: »

Yet the state established and funds VEC schools under religious co-patronage. They're certainly not secular. (and if this isn't unconstitutional endowment of religion, I don't know what is.)

That may be a moot point since VECs haven't existed since last year, but still I have to wonder, what endowment accrues to the religion as a result of being a co-patron of a school? It would seem to be more of an expense than an acquisition. And more than a bit of a hassle given the requirement to educate and accommodate the perspective of pupils who do not belong to their faith.


Not wishing to derail the thread with how some posters might interpret the word 'endow' (given that constitutional endowment has recently been debated to death in A&A), but I don't believe co-patronage gives a religion;
income (other than what is used to run the school)
property (insofar as the state doesn't transfer ownership of the property to the religion)
qualities (being distinctive attributes or characteristics not already possessed by a religion e.g. the quality of being an educator).
abilities (other than again those already possessed by the religion, such as the ability to proselytise)
or assets (being useful or valuable physical items which are not used for the school).

If anyone else wants to debate any of that.. feel free to leave me out of it :-)

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure how my attitude to convenience should relate to my attitude to cost?

Perhaps you're new to capitalist economies, but I think a moment's thought will convince most of the rest of us that the two are fairly readily intertransactable.

Whether these situations are hypothetical or factual (and I do need to buy bread in fariness), my feelings are the same.

On the evidence so far, your feelings about hypothetical situations applying to yourself are considerably stronger than your feelings about real situations applying to others. Not that you're unusual in this, of course. I think it was Mel Brookes that said, "tragedy is when I get a hangnail; comedy is when someone else falls down a manhole and dies."

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here, but if I read it right, if someone (or country) behaves in a fashion that you think is catholic, then they are a catholic, regardless of what they themselves think/say?

Yes. Well, not simply what I think is Catholic (lest you be trying a rhetorical "pivot" here to suggest I am the person arguing for rampany a la carte subjectivity here), but (let's go wild and say) what a jury of their peers would determine was consistent with what a "reasonable person's" interpretation of Catholicism. Or (gasp!) what the RCC says is "Catholic".

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's economically progressive in precisely the same sense as progressive taxation. As compared with the "having a whipround" baseline. Presumably the "overhead" argument to a degree works in favour of the tithe-as-tax method, since it essentially just piggybacks on the existing infrastructure

So the church collects more cash; progressive taxation is not necessarily progressive economics. What is economically progressive for the State in religious tithing? The favourable overhead argument only works in favour of the church; the overhead may overall be lower but the State overhead increases, so it's still economically regressive for the State.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think no-one would think otherwise, frankly. Religious apologists just have a curious lack of "ownership", or dare I say relativism, when it comes to their denom body's past antics.

Even if they do, that doesn't rationalise the State tithing the religious on behalf of the churches?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Again, "enforcing" is ludicrous over-egging. Unless the Finnish Religious Police is well-known for abseiling through bedroom windows late at night, based on their Prayer Detector Vans' surveillance of Non Liturgically Licenced Locations, in a way I'm unaware of.

Would you prefer collecting? Taking? Withholding? I'm not overly exercised by what word is used to describe the process of tax collecting in this case.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Are those the only options available? What about Danish "theocracy" vs. Ireland's version of "secularism"? Your erasure of other distinctions invites us to conclude that the former is clearly terrible, and the matter a marvel of modernism, which is hardly even worth mocking as propositions go.

Well then I'm very glad I didn't propose the options you've ascribed to me, I wouldn't want to be beneath mocking!
I've simply opposed the idea of the State imposing taxes on behalf of religions, if it seems I've erased any other distinctions in religious funding by virtue of not offering them as valid alternatives, please excuse my omission which is simply a result of my general lack of interest in how religious bodies might fund themselves when it doesn't involve me or the State I live in.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Perhaps you're new to capitalist economies, but I think a moment's thought will convince most of the rest of us that the two are fairly readily intertransactable.

Perhaps I am (Or then again perhaps I'm not! Is it relevant? Only it seems, if you're trying to be dismissive?), but a further moments reflection might demonstrate that whilst they are potentially intertransactable, they are not necessarily related. Neither one absolutely must affect the other; particularly when you are discussing whether the convenience of religious freedom is a feature of religious freedom, and discussing whether paying the state to be a member of a religious group infringes religious freedom. Now I know, both have religious freedom in there, but I'm pretty sure that won't amount to intertransactibility, unless you want to talk about how much it should cost to make religious freedom more convenient? Different discussion but maybe of interest to some.

alaimacerc wrote: »

On the evidence so far, your feelings about hypothetical situations applying to yourself are considerably stronger than your feelings about real situations applying to others. Not that you're unusual in this, of course. I think it was Mel Brookes that said, "tragedy is when I get a hangnail; comedy is when someone else falls down a manhole and dies."

Doesn't the evidence so far include the statements I make on the subject? So having said my feelings are the same in both, is there a statement I've made which indicate an exaggerated sense of emotion in hypothetical situations over real ones?
Yes, I realise you changed your point from "hypothetical costs and inconveniences to a group you identify with" & "real costs and inconveniences incurred by those strange weirdos that aren't as comfortable with the status quo" to "hypothetical situations applying to yourself" & "real situations applying to others" which is a tad more pointed, but personally I think it's reasonable to allow some leeway for emotions running higher in situations involving oneself rather than third parties.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes. Well, not simply what I think is Catholic (lest you be trying a rhetorical "pivot" here to suggest I am the person arguing for rampany a la carte subjectivity here), but (let's go wild and say) what a jury of their peers would determine was consistent with what a "reasonable person's" interpretation of Catholicism. Or (gasp!) what the RCC says is "Catholic".

The whole discussion of what exactly is "Catholic" seems to be continuing on the thread anyway, and whilst I favour a la carte subjectivity combined with a lower case "c", that's a different discussion. To the specific point at hand, are you contending that if a jury of Ireland's peers (not sure who that might be, maybe the other Eurozone members?) vote that Ireland is a Catholic Country, then, even over Ireland's protestations to the contrary, Ireland is a Catholic Country? Even (further gasp..) if Pope Francis declares Ireland to be a Catholic Country tomorrow, Ireland must simply accept the epithet? Seems a bit unfair... surely as a country we can defend ourselves? We could have Big Macs on Friday, or not implement a Church Tax, or have a Protestant President, or work on Sundays... there must be something!

SpaceTime wrote: »

I can assure you of one thing - if there were a German style church tax, Ireland would be the most atheist country on the planet 24 hours after it was introduced

Like Germany is? It's heartening to imagine that everyone would behave the way you think they should if you encourage them, but at the end of the day it's just imagination...which seems to be the basis for your assurance?
Or I've just been suckered in and you're about to show us the incontrovertible evidence which you've based your assurance on, and I'll look like an idiot for jumping to a conclusion
By the way, Sweden is generally reckoned to be the most 'irreligious' country in the world; 85% identify as 'irreligious' (not quite 'atheist' but the best I could find without looking hard). They do have a(n optional) Church tax of about 2% (compared to Germany's 9%ish); yet 70% of Swedes are baptised, 90% have Christian burials, but only 10% say religion is important. So it appears a la carte christianity may be tolerant of a low price threshold.. Of course the Christians have been taxing Jews to varying degrees in Europe for centuries and the Jews don't seem do have disappeared either so maybe it's not so cut and dried (that was tried on the Jews too, and still left a population proportion 75% of the world average, but anyways..). But 85%.... that's the number to beat.

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's not that the church necessarily collects more, but that what it does collect is related to the payees' income. I think you're reading into my explicitly qualified use of "progressive" some sort of effusive praise that really was never there.

I read your statement as "It's economically progressive in precisely the same sense as progressive taxation". We know (possibly because we're not new to capitalist economies, or for other reasons) that progressive taxation is where the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. However, implementing a church tax doesn't increase the rate of the economy, nor does the economic base increase as a result. So in the sense of progressive taxation, economically progressive doesn't seem to be a great fit here... which is why I questioned your statement that "what's evidently seen elsewhere as an economically progressive to fund religious bodies". Unless you meant "elsewhere" as being religious organisations rather than other countries, and that the churches think it's great that someone else is paying to give them money? Which I would agree is probably true.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I present it not as "rationalisation" as "valuable historical context".

Would you care to expand? Once upon a time the church collected tithes, so in that context the State collecting tithes on their behalf.... what? Is historically justified? Is morally excused? Is not unconstitutional? Is a good idea? I can't see what value or context you're trying to convey?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Would depend on the nature of the mechanism. eBay has a checkbox on its order confirmation page to give a buck to charity, on top of what you're paying for your goodies. Would that be "forcing"? I don't know in what precise terms the Germans, Danes, and Finns phrase their tax return forms, but it's hardly a huge step to imagine a system that was essentially with that level of "force".

So.... as I said, collecting? Taking? Withholding? I'm not overly exercised by what word is used to describe the process of tax collecting in this case.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Or if it's really the actual cash out of your wallet, that's remaining in those of the atheists and crypto-Catholics that's bothering you: put the case of a subvented tax that you have to pay regardless, but you get to choose whether it goes to your denominational body, cancer research, a gay rights charity, etc, etc.

If as you say (since that's not the argument I made) the question remains, why? If there is no case to be made for an additional tax that supports churches, why would there be a case to be made for an additional tax that supports churches and provides an extra revenue stream for other organisations? I already get to choose whether my money goes to a denominational body, cancer research, a gay rights charity, etc, etc. Why would I propose a tax to force myself to give money away?

alaimacerc wrote: »

You didn't? You seem remarkably satisfied with Irish status quo, and you seem to be defending it on the basis of "perfectly secular enough to be going on with". Am I perhaps missing some nuance of distinction when you say "propose", as against merely "defend to the hilt"?

If I did, I suspect you'd have quoted it... Well, since you obviously can't quote me saying I propose we have either religious tithing or not, with no other distinctions, perhaps you can quote me merely defending to the hilt having either religious tithing or not, with no other distinctions? When you can't, would you care to revise your assessment of my satisfaction level?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, what you're especially exercised about, it appears to me, is the state administering a funding mechanic for religion that would only be paid by self-identifying members of those very religions.

I'm pretty sure I objected to only taxing members of religions as it would be an infringement of their right to religious liberty. I might be further exercised if the State proposed to administer a funding mechanic for religions (as distinct, for instance, from a funding mechanic for education which involves contributions from religions), as that could also be a constitutional infringement.

alaimacerc wrote: »

When it taxes (as in, actually taxes) atheists, agnostics, and members of minority religions that get no such benefits, and uses them to (at the most generous interpretation possible of the "honest, no endowing!" gloss) cross-subsidise designated religions with a certain critical mass (as it were), you're not so very much in "opposition" at all.

Wow, I definitely missed that. When did I say that? In, fact, when did we even discuss a tax paid by all to fund (any, even non-critical mass) religions? I would have thought I'd say something about it if someone brought it up! And then, you'd be able to quote what I said, instead of telling me that I don't oppose it....

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, it won't. They're very clearly related. Ameliorating the "inconvenience" is going to have cost implications, by any rational accounting. Absorbing "costs" is ultimately a matter of (in)convenience.

Now you're saying they're related, rather than intertransactable? If that's the case, can you please demonstrate how the inconvenience of going to the shops is related to the cost of the bread? As far as I can tell, whether I am inconvenienced by having to interrupt the most terribly interesting internet conversation ever, or whether it is perfectly convenient as I am only playing with my pet, the price of the bread will be the same when I get there. My inconvenience will be resolutely unameliorated, and my focaccia will still be €3.09 . If it helps, I will stipulate that buying a focaccia for $309 that's so big I can't carry it, will inconvenience me when returning from the store. In that case, inconvenience may (indirectly) arise from the cost. But more directly from a great big piece of bread.

alaimacerc wrote: »

My point here is the the hypothetical situations would more reasonably involve attenuated responses. Or at least, it's pretty much certain to garner pretty darn attenuated sympathy.

Oh. I thought your point was that I exhibited outrage at hypothetical costs and inconveniences to a group you believe I identify with, and an utter lack of empathy with the real costs and inconveniences incurred by those strange weirdos that aren't as comfortable with the status quo. That was what you said. But I'm sure your new point is very interesting too.

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, I didn't change my point at all; precise rhetorical details may vary, lest I bore even myself in the process of reiteration.

Really? So you're saying "hypothetical costs and inconveniences to a group you identify with" & "real costs and inconveniences incurred by those strange weirdos that aren't as comfortable with the status quo" are the same as "hypothetical situations applying to yourself" & "real situations applying to others", just with different rhetoric? The difference between 'me' and a 'group I identify with' is rhetorical? 'Costs and inconveniences' are only rhetorically different from 'situations'? We may run into comprehension issues if we're going to have that level of elasticity with concepts. I guess I'll just ask for clarification when i need it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're outraged at even the prospect of a state-administered tithe, as your children would be forced to go hungry thereby, or at least downgrade from M&S to Tesco Finest, or whatever ghastly vista we were supposed to call to mind.

Am I? When exactly did I mention I was outraged? It's just that, you keep saying it, and I don't. Nor did I say the reason I oppose a tithe is because my children would be forced to go hungry, I said when someone is less able to put food on the table for their children as a result of expressing their religion, you can hardly say their religious liberty is unimpaired. Interesting that you think I'd only be forced to downgrade from M&S to Tesco Finest though. Which of us do you think that statement says more about?

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're apparently "intensely relaxed", or at least very keen to minimise, the mere "inconvenience" of people who actually already are royally screwed over by school "ethos" and admissions policy. The key distinction between these cases seems to be "to whom they are (or are not) happening".

Again, I can't recall saying I was "intensely relaxed" either. Are you sure you're not having this conversation with someone else? You just seem to be saying a lot of things were said that weren't. Maybe you should reread the thread so you can discuss the real points put forward? You may note in the course of that, that I didn't express any keenness to minimise any inconvenience to people who actually already are royally screwed over by school "ethos" and admissions policy. I haven't in fact, discussed at all, the inconvenience to people who actually already are royally screwed over by school "ethos" and admissions policy. Nor did I make any distinction between these and your unspecified others, whether or not they were distinguishable by "to whom they are (or are not) happening".

alaimacerc wrote: »

I was thinking more of people and their peers. From there, extrapolate to countries in line with, well, you know. Logic. Customary use of language. That sort of type of thing.

I think I got that. So, extrapolating from people to countries, as you say....if a jury of Ireland's peers (not sure who that might be, maybe the other Eurozone members?) vote that Ireland is a Catholic Country, then, even over Ireland's protestations to the contrary, is Ireland then a Catholic Country?

alaimacerc wrote: »

In terms of public policy, Ireland is still now more (and historically was even moreso) Catholic than the median Irish person. If you're going to take the self-descriptions of said people at face value, it's pretty inconsistent to maintain that there's nothing "Catholic" about said public policy, on the basis of mere lack of an official religion.

So, you're saying that because public policy (you might want to say which policies, or are we aggregating all public policies?) aligns with Catholicism (and it would be nice if you said how), then Ireland is a Catholic country? As opposed to, or in alignment with, the extrapalatory proposal above? It would be interesting to see how much of that policy then aligns with Christianity; I'm guessing enough that you could also call Ireland a Christian country? Then, how much of that policy aligns with the tenets of Islam... possibly enough to call Ireland a Muslim country? Maybe we could see how much of Ireland's public policy is acceptable to Atheists; if more than, say 60% of policy was acceptable, could we say Ireland is an Atheist country? Or is it just going to be a case of first dibs? In which case I'm proposing Ireland is a Druidic country until someone demonstrates the lack of contiguity between public policy and Druidic principles. How many countries do I need to agree with me before it's official?

ninja900 wrote: »

What makes you think that they make any effort whatsoever to accommodate pupils not of their faith? We have plenty of anecdotal reports in this forum of VEC (I'll continue to use that term while everyone else continues to do so) schools as being as bad as, if not worse than, explicitly catholic schools.

When you say we have plenty of anecdotal reports in this forum of VEC schools as being as bad as, if not worse than, explicitly catholic schools, would you care to give a few examples, from say, the last year or so? I've tried looking myself and the worst criticisms I see relate to them being multi-denominational rather than non-denominational, and having more apathetic students than faith schools. One story from about a year and a half ago about a VEC pupil being forced to attend a multi-denominational prayer service, which doesn't really amount to 'plenty of anecdotal reports'? Anyway, I said they are required to accommodate the perspective of pupils who do not belong to their faith; if they're not meeting the requirement (and like I say, I haven't seen the evidence) then it should be addressed by the DoE.

ninja900 wrote: »

The endowment is an (albeit non-monetary) benefit - free rein to indoctrinate pupils in a school entirely constructed and funded by the state.

As I said....

ninja900 wrote: »

If you are claiming that this imposes an expense on them then please substantiate this.

I said, "It would seem to be more of an expense than an acquisition", the substance of my statement being that engaging in the construction and administration of a school and the education of pupils diverts resources from a religious organisation. Even if the religious organisation demands full payment for all contributed resources from the state (with interest on their capital outlay), they are still obliged to pay a portion of renovation costs, and receive a capped contribution from the State for caretaking and secretarial services; in short State contributions to schools are generally likely to net out at less than the actual costs, and funding has to be sourced elsewhere. It seems quite likely that any shortfalls would have to be made up by the religious organisation, either through directly school-related fundraising (like other schools) or from their own funds. However, if you have data that shows the case to be different, and that religious bodies are declaring net incomes from (non-fee paying) schools, I'd happily consider it.

It winds me up something bad that they shored up the process for formally leaving. It's like a spoilt kid who flips the monopoly board when he realises he's losing.

Two threads discussing religion in VEC schools

Atheist forced to participate in prayer at school

Catholic Bishops dictate VEC model in 2008


And some posters' experiences of them:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60390738&postcount=14
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65329693&postcount=26
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72541475&postcount=48
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70053671&postcount=28
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71163790&postcount=70
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86387537&postcount=174
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82567192&postcount=7
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83026383&postcount=1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87023721&postcount=10
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88391780&postcount=419
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76479035&postcount=1

ninja900 wrote: »

Two threads discussing religion in VEC schools
Atheist forced to participate in prayer at school

Yep, that's the one I mentioned from a year and a half ago.

ninja900 wrote: »

Catholic Bishops dictate VEC model in 2008

This is a discussion of how religious organisations were involved with the VEC model; no anecdotes of peoples experience with it, never mind suffering at the hands of a VEC school?

ninja900 wrote: »

And some posters' experiences of them:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60390738&postcount=14

2009 (a bit outside the 1 year window!) an opinion on the vec model, not someones experience with a vec school?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65329693&postcount=26

2010, Again not an experience with VEC schools, but an opinion on Miriam O'Callaghans opinion on religious instruction?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72541475&postcount=48

2011, "They have removed the local bishops from "control" of the schools, but instead of filling the void with useful stuff, like maths, or science or languages, they have filled it with some kind of wishy-washy generic neutral "Politically Correct Religion" doesn't really suggest as bad as if not worse than catholic schools?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70053671&postcount=28

2011 "Although we were a VEC and supposedly non-denominational, we were essentially Catholic in all but name", no mention of a failure to accommodate pupils of a different faith?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71163790&postcount=70

2011 "I went to a VEC school, but it couldn't have been more catholic.", Again, no mention of failure of accommodation?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86387537&postcount=174

"The majority of VEC schools are faith schools, they have in their founding documents a obligation to the spiritual guideance of students. When it is said VEC schools are multidenominational that means it caters for more then 1 type of christian denomination" Morag has posted this a few times actually, but she hasn't actually said that non Catholic students aren't accommodated, or that VECs fail in accommodation more than catholic schoools?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82567192&postcount=7

A posters experience of a leaflet about VECs potentially assuming patronage of divested catholic schools! "However, I've found that the place of religion in VEC secondary schools is rather hard to fathom". Not quite a resounding anecdote of poor experiences?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83026383&postcount=1

An opinion on choice in schools; again not an anecdote of someones actual experience?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87023721&postcount=10

Morag again, same as her previous opinion; "It's the same with the VEC school my children attend, it says it is multi denominational but what that means is welcoming and accommodating to differing christian sects." Still not really knocking VECs failure to accommodate non Catholics?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88391780&postcount=419

Opinion on Atheist Irelands submission to Submission to the Irish Human Rights Commission. Again, not anecdotal evidence of the posters experience with VECs?

ninja900 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76479035&postcount=1

2012 This poster was looking to find out VECs attitute to religion, so really wasn't expressing an opinion on his experience of them "I was trying to find out what is the difference in attitude to religion between the VEC schools (AKA "Community National Schools") and the Educate together ones".


So... taking the posts from the last 6 years or so that you've given as examples of posters experiences, we've actually found only one anecdotal report in this forum of VEC schools being as bad as, if not worse than, explicitly catholic schools when it comes to accommodating pupils not of their faith. Not exactly plenty? I have to say, from your argument, lots of people have opinions about VEC schools, but you haven't presented plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that VEC schools did not make any effort whatsoever to accommodate pupils not of their faith. Just one story.

ninja900 wrote: »

Not only accept but indoctrinate. Yay.

I'm guessing you meant in your opinion, but left it off the end Anyway, accepting multiple denominations seems like it might be a good reason for a poster to call them multi denominational schools.

ninja900 wrote: »

Yes they are required to. But very often don't, just like explicitly religious-patroned schools often don't. What's your point?

My point is; you asked how they are required to accommodate the perspective of pupils who do not belong to their faith, I replied they are required by the Constitution. If they very often don't fulfil their obligation, as you assert, you don't seem to be able to back up the assertion with "plenty of anecdotal reports in this forum of VEC schools as being as bad as, if not worse than, explicitly catholic schools" as you said you could, so I think your assertion is questionable.

ninja900 wrote: »

What evidence do you have that religious co-patrons of VEC schools make contributions to capital or running costs?

About as much, it appears from your post, as you have that they don't? Were I presenting evidence, rather than saying 'it would seem to me', I would have said 'it is a fact'.

And once again, I'm happy to change my opinion if you have data that shows the case to be different, and that religious bodies are declaring net incomes from (non-fee paying) (VEC) schools.

ninja900 wrote: »

You're having a laugh, aren't you?
So in your eyes a multi-denominational school is one (and perhaps the only one in the area) which allows pupils of all religions and none in, and subjects them equally to catholic doctrine :rolleyes:

Nope, I was quoting the same poster you quoted; Morag.

Morag wrote: »

The majority of VEC schools are faith schools, they have in their founding documents a obligation to the spiritual guideance of students. When it is said VEC schools are multidenominational that means it caters for more then 1 type of christian denomination.

ninja900 wrote: »

They don't. My local CoI school doesn't. The RCC schools here don't. Ask any poster here with kids (apart from the few lucky enough to go to ET.)

Are those VEC schools? If you recall, you restricted this discussion to VEC schools?

ninja900 wrote: »

You were specifically talking about VEC schools and I was specifically talking about VEC schools.

Yet you weren't able to quote those "plenty of anecdotal reports in this forum of VEC schools as being as bad as, if not worse than, explicitly catholic schools" remember? Regardless, I never said all VEC schools are assuredly compliant with their obligations in all regards; only that they have obligations.

ninja900 wrote: »

No-one made your strawman claim that religions derive incomes from patronage.

I never claimed anyone did, what I said was "It would seem to be more of an expense than an acquisition". However, if you have data that shows the case to be different, and that religious bodies are declaring net incomes from (non-fee paying) schools, I'd happily consider it.

ninja900 wrote: »

Now, about religious co-patronage of VEC schools, care to support or withdraw your claim that they contribute to the building and maintenance of these state-built and funded schools....?

Sure, just as soon as you can show where I made such a claim (as opposed to giving my opinion on what seems likely to me), and you present the data that shows it to be untrue. I'm perfectly happy to change my opinion if the facts support a change.

ninja900 wrote: »

I'm putting a stop to this now, I've wasted far too much of my time already with you and your weaseling.

That's a little bit mean, I can't help it if I didn't say what you want me to have said. But I understand.