School wants proof my child is a catholic

OTK

Was talking to my wife tonight and she suggests getting the boy baptised by the Catholics and the Protestants which sounds like a pretty good compromise to me. He will hold the religious equivalent of dual citizenship in later life.

Nevyn

Ok really at this stage OTK you are starting to sound like a troll.

A christian baptisism is a christain baptism and I one child that was christianed as a Cof I and the cert stated it was a christain baptism and the child could go on to either faiths.

If you want your child you are going to get him baptised to purely get him into a given school then do it in that parish if they will allow it.

Personaly I see this as lacking the courage of your convictions and moraly I could not do this myself.

Victor

Questions. Do Gaelscoileanna discriminate agasinst foreign students, whose parents have no Irish?

OTK wrote:

According to Victor's data above, 99.88% of schools are religious yet in the 2002 census, 9% of people in Dublin stated that they had no religion or left the answer blank.

No. Its more like 99.99%, the other 0.01% (3 schools - all special / hospital schools). The balancing 0.11% are schools with no students.

OTK wrote:

SNB: i have no choice but to send my child to a religious school. the only available non-religious school is full

Is it one of the 0.01%?

After primary school, what is the landscape like for non-religious schools? I am guessing that the comprehensive schools are my best bet. Are they run by religious?

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that a comprehensive school is code for a community school with a protestant/non-catholic slant.

Ayla wrote:

The problem only comes when the overwhelming majority of schools (as posted multiple times here) are Catholic schools, and Catholic children are therefore given priority in an oversubscribed situation.

I'm not sure if you mean to imply that it is a plan to only educate Catholics to only leave non-Catholics uneducated. I think that would be incorrect, although obviously the very policy creates prioritisation. There is over-subscription and under-subscription throughout the system.

A much more worthy argument would be the overprovision in rural and provincial areas to the detriment of urban, suburban and Dublin and commuter zone students.

I believe that Christ was a human being.

But you worship him!!!

One needn't worship Jesus to follow the basic message.

luckat

Dunno if Gaelscoileanna discriminate *now*, but 30 years back they certainly did - neighbours of ours in Dun Laoghaire were refused a place for their kids in the local Gaelscoil because Irish wasn't spoken at home. The father was a Connemara man and a fluent Irish speaker, but the mother was a <shiver> Dubliner.

lostexpectation

luckat wrote:

Dunno if Gaelscoileanna discriminate *now*, but 30 years back they certainly did - neighbours of ours in Dun Laoghaire were refused a place for their kids in the local Gaelscoil because Irish wasn't spoken at home. The father was a Connemara man and a fluent Irish speaker, but the mother was a <shiver> Dubliner.

the question for both types of schools is to what degree they resist the changes
in society and allowance of non-typical families.

TempestSabre

Cooee wrote:

....Until then you either tow the Catholic line or suffer the probable inconvenience of finding and then travelling, thru our appalling traffic, to a non-denominational school....

People driving their kids long distances to get to a better school is a old as the hills. I don't get what the problem is. Some people have even moved country to get their children into specific schools. If you felt that strongly about it, move to the UK and get your children educated there.

Where you getting those stats (3 schools - all special / hospital schools) from.

http://www.educatetogether.ie/5_schools/listofschools.html

Victor

TempestSabre wrote:

Where you getting those stats (3 schools - all special / hospital schools) from.

From the Department of education link above.

Educate together are multi-/inter-denominational, not non-religious.

edanto

Is there any particular reason that the Equal Status Act (2000) has a loophole for this exact type of discrimination? I just had a quick look at it and just right after it says that schools shouldn't discriminate, there's a paragraph that says the schools aren't discriminating if...

the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

While the Catholic schools don't want to be overrun with non-believers, the parents of non-believers contribute as much tax towards the running costs of the schools as religious parents. That's the main reason that I disagree with this lawful discrimination.

This protectionist law is written in terms of 'certain religious values' etc, but in reality it mainly serves to support the admission policies of Catholic schools.

The law is backwards!!! Massive church organisations don't need legislative protection from minorities. Instead, it should be protecting the children of non-religious people from these outdated policies.

Victor

edanto wrote:

Massive church organisations don't need legislative protection from minorities.

It not aimed at minorites (in fact its largely there to protect minorities), its aimed at indifference.

Conar

I haven't had time to read the entire thread (its a biggy) so I hope I'm not rehashing someone elses point here.

I would like to ask the people that do not see a problem with schools prioritising catholic children a question.

Based on the argument that a school should be allowed give priority to christian children of the same demonination:

1. Would you allow a school run by white people to give priority to white children?
2. Would you allow a school run by intellectuals to give priority to more intelligent children?
3. Even if we take this away from the schools to something more trivial....would you allow a busy golf club started by men to give priority to men knowing that all the memberships will always fill quickly and therefore no women will ever be allowed?
I seem to remember that causing uproar a long time back.

I do realise that these arguments differ a lot but its very easy for people to justify such discrimination when it does not affect them. Imagine for a moment that schools discriminated against children in a diferent method that actually meant that your kids may not be able to get into a primary school in a 5-10 mile radius. Now cut the OP a little slack.

Conar

OTK wrote:

I wouldn't mind if discriminatory selection policies were operated in a small number of religious schools. I wouldn't even mind the state funding them. It's a problem when the religions have control over 99% of the schools.

This I think is one of the major points.
We have monopoly commissions to ensure Tesco's and the like don't take over all our towns and leave us with little or no options for our grocery shopping. Yet our childrens schooling doesn't warrant any similar protection, it's insane.

Like it or not Catholic schools do have an enormous monopoly here so its not like us poor non-catholics are given a fair chance is it.

edanto

Victor wrote:

its aimed at indifference.

And rightly so!! Nearly all of the bill hits that target. I'm just asking anyone that supports these admission policies if the bit of the bill that I quoted above is just and if so, on what grounds?

Surely inclusivity should have a higher priority than indoctrination?

RainyDay

It's good to see this important issue getting an airing.

The OPs wife made a tactical error in lying to the school before researching the rules or checking out the enrollment policy. If the school wants to set out these rules, it is not unexpected that people will get around the rules by 'going through the motions' with christenings.

In the UK, when my brother approached the local Catholic Church school about enrolling his kids, he was quickly shown the door on the basis that he wasn't actively participating in the local church.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that my only reason for getting our little girl christened was to avoid any eligibility issues in the local school. My wife wanted to get her christened anyway, even though she really doesn't practice Catholicism at all.

I do think there is the possibility of getting the religious descrimination enshrined in the Education Act 2000 overturned either via an Ombudsman ruling or taking a constitutional case. Unfortunately, either of these would take huge energy and commitment, and I just can't give it priority at the moment.

TempestSabre

Victor wrote:

From the Department of education link above.

Educate together are multi-/inter-denominational, not non-religious.

From their website.

"...Educate Together guarantees children and parents of all faiths and none equal respect in the operation and governing of education..."

Please note the "...and none..."

http://www.educatetogether.ie/5_schools/listofschools.html

myjugsarehuge

We moved over from England 2 years ago and both my kids went to a local N.S. We are not catholic and the children have not been baptised or christened or anything. On the application form I simply stated "no religion" when asked.

I have had no problems at all, the children attend religious education lessons but the option to withdraw them was given. As I want them to learn about other faiths, whether they decide to take it on board is up to them, I felt it was good that they attended. I had to take RE when I was at school although not to exam stage, it did me no harm.

The school have been most welcoming, the kids are not made to feel awkward at all, at the confirmations last year my son (who was not being confirmed obviously) was in charge of the music in the church and the head teacher was at pains to make sure he had a role to play and didn't feel excluded.

Blush_01

fly_agaric wrote:

Lying to "grease the wheel" would be considered malicious by definition would it not?
Or are chumps that wouldn't lie like this the ones really out of step with the rest of us, who should lie through our teeth on cv's to bag a job, cheat on our taxes if we are not PAYEworkerplebs (I am a pleb btw), brazenly skip queues etc etc if we have any sense?
It's all just adding a bit of grease to our own wheel!

One word: Context.

I based what I said on the assumption that no malice was intended.

Malice:
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.
3. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
Law.
4. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

That ok?

Stirling

Not giving an opinion on the issues here but I just want to clarify something about the Law underpinning the discussion. A lot of the focus here has been on the unfairness of the Equal Status Act which allows such a situation to arise but under Art 44.2.5 of the Constitution allows every religious denomination:

"...the right to manage its own affairs"

and to:

"...maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes"

Schools would be classed as such institutions. The focus on the rights of the individual and the shortcomings of the Equal Status Act is misplaced as the rights of the Religious denomination are Constitutionally protected.

Nevyn

Yes but the government still is failing in it's duties to

“The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.”

The churches ( Catholic and C of I ) can have it's schools but they should not be 98% of all primary schools which means there are no options for parents.

http://www.educatetogether.ie/2_campaigns/legalchallenges.html

Should the vast majority of primary schools be allowed to discrimate on such bases ? No the should not it is just unfortunate they they happen to be denominational school this is there the state needs to take measures and sort this out.

Stirling

Looking at it in isolation of the article I've chosen I'd agree with you but taking what you've selected (Art 42.3.1) and the one I've quoted in tandem and you'll see the difficulty that arises.

The State "shall not oblige" means that you shall not be forced to comply with the school policy outlined by OTK as you are free to either go elsewhere or home educate and just because you make those choices the State will not intervene to force attendance at the Cathlic school. This is the essence of the "non obliging".

The Article I quote means that the State will not oblige the religious school to act against its manner of operation. When you say the "State must do something" that is to overlook the relationship between the State and the school which is in Constitutional terms one of two autonomous bodies with significant degrees of interaction in terms of funding and regulation but which are nonetheless in charge of their own destinies to a great extent.

OTK

Thaedydal wrote:

Ok really at this stage OTK you are starting to sound like a troll.

A christian baptisism is a christain baptism and I one child that was christianed as a Cof I and the cert stated it was a christain baptism and the child could go on to either faiths.

If you want your child you are going to get him baptised to purely get him into a given school then do it in that parish if they will allow it.

Personaly I see this as lacking the courage of your convictions and moraly I could not do this myself.

I'm not trolling. I know that's what all trolls say but still.

Apparently a baptism is non-sect specific but surely the baptismal cert carries the name of the issuing church. Also, the catholic church views a baptism as invalid where a baptism has already been carried out, so if I get him baptised by the Cof I first then the Catholic one will be technically void.

I have an uncle who was the product of a mixed marriage in the 30s. He tells me that he was not only baptised but confirmed a Catholic and a protestant by his respective parents. So it is (or was) possible.

Courage of my convictions has to be balanced against my wife's wishes. She would like the child to attend a local school and is not keen on him travelling a distance to hang out with other non-conformists. I would ideally like my child to be taught in a school with a representative sample of local children rather than in a segregated environment, regardless of whether that segregation is on racial, national or religious lines.

I found out that the secondary comprehensive schools in Dublin (Newpark and Mount Temple) are both run by the C of I, although they have an explicitly inclusive enrollment policy.

I have also written to Barry Andrews and Paul Gogarty who are on the Dáil committees on Education and Science, to ask them to stop state funded schools from selecting pupils based on religion or sect. I would ask anyone reading this who agrees with me to do likewise as it will have more effect than anything you type into an internet forum.

RE:Stirling. I don't read from the constitution that the state is obliged to fund religious schools. If they are autonomous bodies, then presumably the state owes them zero.

Nevyn

Yes but the sytem and law and the interp of the Constitution can be challenged and changed it is a shame that it takes someone taking a case through the courts and if needs be the EU high court like Senator David Norris did.

parsi

Conar wrote:

2. Would you allow a school run by intellectuals to give priority to more intelligent children?

Do you have to have fluent Irish to go to a Gaelscoil ?

victor wrote:

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that a comprehensive school is code for a community school with a protestant/non-catholic slant.

In Limerick I went to a community school which was non-denominational. The main comp (Crescent College) was Jesuit...

The Gaelgeoirs formed their own schools ( and it was a long hard struggle) in order to follow their dream of thorough education through Irish - surely that could be a route for those people who would like schooling without any religious influences ?

Stirling

Thaedydal wrote:

Yes but the sytem and law and the interp of the Constitution can be challenged and changed it is a shame that it takes someone taking a case through the courts and if needs be the EU high court like Senator David Norris did.

Easier said than done. The second article I selected is the one that expressly gives a Religious denomination the power to discriminate in the manner in which they did.

If you wish to challenge "through the courts", as you put it, the decision of the school then you are on a hiding to nothing because all the school will have to do is hold up the right which they have and nothing can be done. Remember one crucial point is that the Constitution can only be changed by a vote of the people and not by means of a court challenge. In the case of Norris what he was challenging was an Act - what you would be challenging here is an express Constitutional right.

As for seeking a different interpretation of the Article that would be well nigh impossible as there are few articles that are as explicit as this one.

As for Norris taking his case to the EU High Court there are a few things I would like to say.

There is no such thing as an "EU High Court". Norris challenged the Constitutionality of a 19th Century Criminal Law Amendment Act which outlawed Homosexual Activity between males but not between females.

The essence of his case was that the Act was a violation of his right to privacy and that the criminalisation of sexual activity between males but not between females was a violation of the Equality guarantee. He failed on both counts in both the High Court and the Supreme Court and ultimately took a case to the European Court of Human Rights seeking a declaration that the Act was a violation of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

He obtained this declaration but as the Convention was not recognised in Irish law at the time the Government did not legally have to act to change the law even though they did so.

The Convention has since been enacted into Irish law but it is questionable as to whether a declaration would be granted that the school discriminating in this manner amounts to a violation of your rights under the charter.

An entitlement to education exists but this does not mean that your rights have been violated because the school has denied you admission. This is not allowing you to be educated in a PARTICULAR school for reasons which they are constitutionally permitted to do so rather than an outright refusal of the State to allow you to be educated.

OTK as for your point about the State not being obliged to fund Religious schools - taking it as a purely ragmatic point the provision of education by religious and other groups means that there is one less school for the State to provide by itself and so they fund them and will continue to fund them.

up for anything

mountainyman wrote:

The difficulty with the Educate Together schools is that it is basically a bunch of really posh people who get together to keep out the commoners; you won't get in.

That's a complete load of boll*x. My children go to an educate together school and the enrollment is based on first come, first get in. If you have a dozen children already in the school and you don't put your youngest child's name in time.. he/she won't get in. Or at least that is the policy in their school. The children of of the local brasser get in based on that as do the children of a barrister. I would think that my family would be regarded as commoners, the bread winner being a blocklayer but we got in by virtue of the waiting list.

Crea

OTK wrote:

Hi there
I want to send my kid to the local national school. he is 4 yrs old.

My wife put his name down last year and now I have been offered a place conditional on me sending in his baptismal cert.

thing is he doesn't have one as my family is not religious.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the state paying for sectarian discriminatory schools run by a paedophile club, how am i going to get my kid into the school?

I have three plans so far:
a) beg priest to baptise my child. Pretend I love jebus etc. Is there a quicky service or does the priest make you go through some months long process?
b) photocopy someone else's baptismal cert and tippex on my kids name, photocopy again, present fraudulent document (am I breaking the law?)
c) procrastinate about the cert for ages and never get round to producing it

I know there is a school for non religious called educate together but you have to have your name down for years and it is nowhere near my house.

thanks for your thoughts

OTK

I have been following all this and have a question:
Did the school actually say that they wouldn't allow your child in if you didn't produce a baptismal cert?
They may be only looking for the baptismal cert because you wife told them that the child was baptised. It may not be an actual criteria for getting in.

edanto

I've started a little thread about this over in Legal Discussion if anyone wants to contribute to that aspect of it in both fora.

snickerpuss

parsi wrote:

Do you have to have fluent Irish to go to a Gaelscoil ?
In Limerick I went to a community school which was non-denominational. The main comp (Crescent College) was Jesuit...
The Gaelgeoirs formed their own schools ( and it was a long hard struggle) in order to follow their dream of thorough education through Irish - surely that could be a route for those people who would like schooling without any religious influences ?

You definately don't need fluent irish and also i went to an gaelscoil and it wasn't religious. I'd fully recommend them to anyone as usually they're smaller and parents have alot of input.
Also you don't need irish to put your kids there, my parents (still) speak no irish and it was never an issue.
Could be an idea if you were stuck for a non-religious school.

Conar

My daughter also goes to a gaelscoil.
It (as much as it pains me) appears to be very religious.
They say their prayers in the yard before they even go into class in the morning.
In saying that they knew my daughter wasn't baptised and it wasn't an issue but my girlfriend did go there as a child so perhaps that swayed the decision.

Above all though the parents can have a lot of input into the running of the school and it is a great advantage learning a 2nd language so young.

OTK

Crea wrote:

I have been following all this and have a question:
Did the school actually say that they wouldn't allow your child in if you didn't produce a baptismal cert?
They may be only looking for the baptismal cert because you wife told them that the child was baptised. It may not be an actual criteria for getting in.

I told the school today that my wife had made a mistake and that the child was not baptised. I asked if this made any difference and they laughed and said no, that they choose on the basis of living close to the school and first come first served (you have to queue early in the morning on a certain date as my wife did). They told me there were 'plenty' of unbaptised children in the school who didn't take part in first communion.

Well I am afraid I will have to dismount from my high horse as my assumptions based on being asked for a baptismal cert were completely wrong.

Crea

OK dismount all troops

Really glad all worked out OK.