Tolerating the intolerant

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would argue that taking EU grant and subsidies with one hand while willfully enshrining an education system in direct contravention of EU human rights legislation with the other, should be though...

Taking whats available, whilst being permitted to take whats available doesn't strike me as problematic. If you're arguing that the world should operate in such a way that doesn't involve loopholes, contradictions.. and all the rest of it then I'd agree with you. But it doesn't and so all sorts is the norm.

The point was narrow. Irish atheism isn't that big of a voice to demand what the rest of the population clearly aren't demanding.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Taking whats available, whilst being permitted to take whats available doesn't strike me as problematic. If you're arguing that the world should operate in such a way that doesn't involve loopholes, contradictions.. and all the rest of it then I'd agree with you.

I'm arguing that schools paid for by ALL tax payers shouldn't be legally allowed to discriminate against children of minorities, whether those minorities be race, religion or disability - do you agree with that?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm arguing that schools paid for by ALL tax payers shouldn't be legally allowed to discriminate against children of minorities, whether those minorities be race, religion or disability - do you agree with that?

Which is a different point from the one which involves taking money that someone is prepared to give you - despite apparent contradictions. I've no problem taking money offered me. Few have had.

As to eg: Catholic schools giving preference to Catholic children? I see no particular problem in that (or in an atheist school giving preference to atheist children - it seems reasonable to me that parents should have the choice as to which philosophy their children will be exposed during their education. Let's agree that it can't be none.). So long as the funds are doled out proportionately.

That we have a historical situation which sees so many schools headed up by religious organisations leads me to suppose that the State should be thankful for that past contribution.

But if now desiring to separate itself further, then it should by all means do so. That that's easier said than done (given that the schooling infrastructure is largely religious and can't be replaced overnight) isn't the problem for the religious involved.

Ickle Magoo

No, you suggested the percentage of atheists aren't enough to change the status quo - I'm pointing out the embarrassment of being in contravention of human rights legislation while still sidling in for EU cash should do it/is already doing it.

Legally discriminating against small children based on their parents religion or lack of isn't the problem of the religious involved? How very christian of you. :pac:

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Legally discriminating against small children based on their parents religion or lack of isn't the problem of the religious involved? How typically christian of you. :pac:

If there's ten places in a particular school and eleven children desiring a place then someone's going to be dissappointed. It seems unreasonable to me that those who don't hold to the value system overarching the schools approach should be given preference over someone who does.

In this case, the discrimination isn't against the child as it isn't criteria involving any of the children themselves that is being evaluated. Rather, it is the decision/viewpoint of their guardians (who make decisions on their behalf) that are being evaluated. And it is the decision/viewpoint of the guardian that is being discriminated against.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, you suggested the percentage of atheists aren't enough to change the status quo - I'm pointing out the embarrassment of being in contravention of human rights legislation while still sidling in for EU cash should do it/is already doing it.

As I say, I've no problem with the government increasing separation between church and state. By all means let government establish more secular schools where religion is but a.n.other subject.

But when it comes to so-called 'faith schools', I see no reason for such a school to accomodate the (somewhat curiously contradictory) desires of parents not of that faith to have their children schooled there.

I can't see this government letting embarrassment overcome pragmatism. Indeed, I can't see this government coming within nodding distance of the notion of embarrassment.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

If there's ten places in a particular school and eleven children desiring a place then someone's going to be dissappointed. It seems unreasonable to me that those who don't hold to the value system overarching the schools approach should be given preference over someone who does.

Me neither, what's unreasonable is expecting me to pay for it. If schools want the right to pick and choose their pupils, they should be private schools funded solely by people who agree with that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In this case, the discrimination isn't against the child as it isn't criteria involving any of the children themselves that is being evaluated. Rather, it is the decision/viewpoint of their guardians (who make decisions on their behalf) that are being evaluated. And it is the decision/viewpoint of the guardian that is being discriminated against.

:pac:

Bullshít! I'm not the one going to school, they are not discriminating against me! I tried to enroll my child at several schools and was told not to bother with some, they had plenty of RC kids to full the places and weren't going to spend the extra resources making alternative arrangements for HIM. You can keep telling yourself that in some warped way it's my fault that the child can't get into the state schools nearest to us or you can admit the system is terrible, outdated and the fact that it contravenes human rights legislation, frankly, shameful.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

....the discrimination isn't against the child as it isn't criteria involving any of the children themselves that is being evaluated...

What? Like the child's baptism cert, you mean?

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would argue that taking EU grant and subsidies with one hand while willfully enshrining an education system in direct contravention of EU human rights legislation with the other, should be though...

The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution, though a lot of low-end religious propaganda would have you believe that it is.

In fact, it's a judicial body formed as part of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 and was instituted on a temporary basis initially, then permanently, around ten or twelve years back. AFAIR, Ireland joined up with the first group of countries, so our membership of the ECHR predates the EU by around 20 years or so.

The EU itself does not legislate in the area of education, so any moaning to our brothers and sisters in Strasbourg about the power of the Vatican in Ireland is going to be ignored.

.

Ickle Magoo

Oh I know, I just find it so ironic that Ireland is happy to lap up the money Europe throws at her while standing deliberately in contravention of European human rights legislation...I know they are not two branches of the same organisation, unfortunately, or I suspect we wouldn't have this archaic issue to deal with in 2010.

*shakes head in disbelief at the brass neckery*

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Me neither, what's unreasonable is expecting me to pay for it. If schools want the right to pick and choose their pupils, they should be private schools funded solely by people who agree with that.

The issue, I believe, isn't one of picking and choosing. Rather, where places available are less than places demanded, preference is given to parents who'd like their children to be educated according to the value system operated by the school.

Let's face it: when demand outstrips supply, some or other deciding criterion will be invoked. This particular one seems to be to be an reasonable one - given the importance a value system has in educating children.

Bullshít! I'm not the one going to school, they are not discriminating against me! I tried to enroll my child at several schools and was told not to bother with some, they had plenty of RC kids to full the places and weren't going to spend the extra resources making alternative arrangements for HIM.

Which seems reasonable enough. Cost considerations are a fact of life in all walks of life and if places are limited it wouldn't make sense to be taking on board pupils who cost more - simply because it proved convenient to the parents.

You can keep telling yourself that in some warped way it's my fault that the child can't get into the state schools nearest to us or you can admit the system is terrible, outdated and the fact that it contravenes human rights legislation, frankly, shameful.

Like I say, I've no problem with the government diverting funds and setting up proportionately more secular schools. Until then (given the slow rate at which this would take place) I'd probably just have my kids bapitised Catholic so as to take advantage of the best education going (were it the case that this was the best education going).

In other words, I wouldn't let my own belief system (which is pretty anti-Catholic) stand in the way of my kids good education. I probably wouldn't even let it stand in the way of a conveniently located education.

It's just a system: there's no reason not to work it. You can of course hold to your "principles", make a big song and dance about it ...and drive 15 miles out of your way every morning

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Oh I know, I just find it so ironic that Ireland is happy to lap up the money Europe throws at her while standing deliberately in contravention of European human rights legislation...I know they are not two branches of the same organisation, unfortunately, or I suspect we wouldn't have this archaic issue to deal with in 2010.

*shakes head in disbelief at the brass neckery*

Politics isn't about perfection. It's about pragmatism. There's nothing ironic about that.

The primary and secondary educational infrastructure has historical roots in Catholicism (and to a lesser extent, Protestantism): set up by, funded by, managed by - the Church. Pragmatic Politics hitched it's educational bandwagon to that particular pony a long time ago. And hasn't the money now to pull a new, suitable-for- a-tiny-minorities-belief-system infrastructure out of the sky. At least, not one that will provide educational establishments at a convenient distance to said tiny-minority. And it probably won't have for a long time to come.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

And hasn't the money now to pull a new, suitable-for- a-tiny-minorities-belief-system infrastructure out of the sky. At least, not one that will provide educational establishments at a convenient distance to said tiny-minority.

Is this the tiny minority you talk about?

MRBI Poll wrote:

When asked about the issue, 61 per cent of people said the church should give up control of the school system, 28 per cent said it should maintain its position and 11 per cent had no opinion on the matter.

Thread here.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue, I believe, isn't one of picking and choosing. Rather, where places available are less than places demanded, preference is given to parents who'd like their children to be educated according to the value system operated by the school.

Let's face it: when demand outstrips supply, some or other deciding criterion will be invoked. This particular one seems to be to be an reasonable one - given the importance a value system has in educating children.

With 5yr old kids? It shouldn't be who is local to that school? There should be sectarian and religious prejudice invoked - that's wonderful. Demand? Do you have any idea how many people are turned away from ET schools for lack of places?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which seems reasonable enough. Cost considerations are a fact of life in all walks of life and if places are limited it wouldn't make sense to be taking on board pupils who cost more - simply because it proved convenient to the parents.

Which would be fine if we were talking about a private school that is only funded by those going there. State funded primary education shouldn't be an elite lottery that can discriminate against a minority. If a school turned around and claimed since the majority of Irish people are white, they'll not be accepting any coloured pupils, especially children of immigrant who require extra help with their speech, would that be okay? Oh, wait - that IS what happens. :mad:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like I say, I've no problem with the government diverting funds and setting up proportionately more secular schools. Until then (given the slow rate at which this would take place) I'd probably just have my kids bapitised Catholic so as to take advantage of the best education going (were it the case that this was the best education going).

As it happens, round here it's not, thankfully. The ET school has on average 100 applicants a year for 30 places. I put my son's name down at birth and he was 16th on the list.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In other words, I wouldn't let my own belief system (which is pretty anti-Catholic) stand in the way of my kids good education. I probably wouldn't even let it stand in the way of a conveniently located education.

It's just a system: there's no reason not to work it. You can of course hold to your "principles", make a big song and dance about it ...and drive 15 miles out of your way every morning

I was brought up to stick up for what I believe in and that feck all gets done by getting your head down and joining the crowd. I happen to agree with that. We have an excellent ET, it's ten minutes away and we're going to a meeting next week with regards to setting up an ET secondary here...so looks like the songs and the dancing are working. Certainly I wouldn't have helped by pretending to be a catholic and going thru the motions for the sake of an easy life. On some topics I'll forgo easy for meaningful & principled any day of the week, my kids being segregated at school or having to pretend to be a particular faith because the education system needs dragged out of the 18th century would be one of them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Politics isn't about perfection. It's about pragmatism. There's nothing ironic about that.

The primary and secondary educational infrastructure has historical roots in Catholicism (and to a lesser extent, Protestantism): set up by, funded by, managed by - the Church. Pragmatic Politics hitched it's educational bandwagon to that particular pony a long time ago. And hasn't the money now to pull a new, suitable-for- a-tiny-minorities-belief-system infrastructure out of the sky. At least, not one that will provide educational establishments at a convenient distance to said tiny-minority. And it probably won't have for a long time to come.

See, and this is what really bugs me about this. It's not a "suitable-for-a-tiny-minorities-belief-system".

A) Secularism is not a belief system.

THE WHOLE POINT is that it's suitable for EVERYONE.

You know how we have a minority of people who have disabilities but we make sure all PUBLIC buildings are accessible to them? You know how we have a minority of coloured people and we have laws to ensure that when two people go for the one job, the interviewers personal prejudices cannot legally be allowed to be a factor for not picking the coloured interviewee? You may think it is beyond Ireland in 2010 to have a state paid education system that doesn't discriminate against 5 yr olds based on faith - I don't. I just think it suits some to claim that and to try to hide behind the "majority" argument while conveniently ignoring the fact it's is contravention of human rights legislation.

Perhaps in lieu of the millions of €'s compensation the RC owe the Irish people for the generations of abuse and perversions, they can cough up some lands and schools - or even better, the government get off their sorry @rses, do the first genuine and intelligent thing they have done in generations and demand the RC hand over the schools for full state control & take on the basic responsibilities they should have had the guts to shoulder decades ago?! :pac:

Genghiz Cohen

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

[To Awesome to repeat, it would endanger the universe]

Ickle, if we were both single....

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

The primary and secondary educational infrastructure has historical roots in Catholicism (and to a lesser extent, Protestantism): set up by, funded by, managed by - the Church. Pragmatic Politics hitched it's educational bandwagon to that particular pony a long time ago. And hasn't the money now to pull a new, suitable-for- a-tiny-minorities-belief-system infrastructure out of the sky. At least, not one that will provide educational establishments at a convenient distance to said tiny-minority. And it probably won't have for a long time to come.

Funded by the church you say? So the Vatican sent some of it's riches to Ireland to build the schools? Or maybe all those hard working preists went out, took on second jobs and then used the cash to build the schools? Or do you mean the local people handed money, under penalty of the eternal torture of their immortal souls, over to the church and then the church spent a small part of that on funding the schools?

Saying the church funded the building of the schools is fine but don't make out like it was some altruistic act, some sacrifice on their part for the good of the people, something which should grant them everlasting control of the system. Schools get built, in most cultures, not just ones with catholic or protestant influences. The people funded the building of the schools, the church just acted as middle men, or stand-over men if you prefer, and took their cut.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The primary and secondary educational infrastructure has historical roots in Catholicism (and to a lesser extent, Protestantism): set up by, funded by, managed by - the Church.

I don't believe that the church paid for schools out of central church funds rather than by local public subscription or local bequests explicitly for the purpose of school-building.

But regardless of that, public schools are now funded by the Department of Finance from the taxes that we all pay. If the church wishes to control access to schools, then it can pay for them itself.

Do you think it's fair that the church controls what it does not pay for?

Erren Music

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that the church paid for schools out of central church funds rather than by local public subscription or local bequests explicitly for the purpose of school-building.

But regardless of that, public schools are now funded by the Department of Finance from the taxes that we all pay. If the church wishes to control access to schools, then it can pay for them itself.

Do you think it's fair that the church controls what it does not pay for?

The church are smart fukcers. Seperate the vatican into the holy see and another trinity, make one a state, make the other the controlling interest. It should be a book "corporations for dummies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City


Go where the uneducated and ignorant and poor are.

Fill their heads with BS from a fictional book, then get them to build the institutions and buildings with their own donations and efforts.

Then take ownership of said assets. They cannot be touched.

Then provide them with lovely young children to keep their high wizards celibate, move the wizards around if the kiddies complain, or just kill some of the kids. Ridicule anyone who dissents.

At this stage your organisation should be raking in loads of cash, have loads of members, and no one can prosecute you. You should have high powered lay members positioned everywhere in police and government.

They will be your eyes and ears because god knows the devil is watching for weakness.

Erren Music

Erren Music wrote: »

I agree with you, banning is not necessary. All it takes is for the vocalisation of the half million + atheists that live here.

I have a problem with traditions and cultural or national identity issues. Just because some say its so does not make it true. We have no cultural identity left in this country.

Our national identity is that we let delusional religious practices control this country, then we let them rape and kill children. Then we paid for their mess and left them in control of our schools. What does that say about us?

We tolerated 3rd class service and corruption from our politicians, health service, etc. We are a joke.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's a bit harsh tbh...

Is it true?

Ickle Magoo

I don't think it's fair nor true that the general populace "let them rape and kill children", no. That said, "jokes" about priests and their alter boys/flock are not a recent phenomena and given how long it's been going on and how widespread the abuse, it's hard to believe that more people didn't know what was going on.

Erren Music wrote:

Then we paid for their mess and left them in control of our schools. What does that say about us?

We tolerated 3rd class service and corruption from our politicians, health service, etc.

This bit I agree with, wholeheartedly.