School patronage

expectationlost

looksee wrote: »

That's interesting, I have a GCE O level in Religious (Education) - I think it was called RE, in the 1960s. The school was essentially secular and RE was taught in the same way as Geography or History. I wonder when it stopped, if it is now being re-created.

how much time was spent Christianity verses others, I think it would be difficult to write a course and have it not be from Christian perspective.

looksee

expectationlost wrote: »

how much time was spent Christianity verses others, I think it would be difficult to write a course and have it not be from Christian perspective.

Its a long time ago, I really can't remember. I do recall some study of the OT that was taught in a neutral way rather than something one was supposed to believe. I was religious at the time but I remember the sense of difference between what was being taught and anything I was taught at my church. I suspect you are right about it being mostly relating to the Christian bible, not necessarily a Christian perspective.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, there are numerous special interest schools in the state, such as steiner schools or foreign language schools, which don't receive state funding. Why are religious schools so special that they must be publicly funded?

I'm not saying special interest schools shouldn't receive public funding; if they conform with the State Curriculum they should (like Raheen Wood Steiner National School), just like religious and secular schools. To fund one kind and withdraw funding from the others would be to impose a particular kind of school.

recedite wrote: »

Could they not survive without state support? If religious schools are as important as you seem to think, religious parents will support the school upholding their own religion, privately.

I imagine they'd survive as well as secular schools would, if secular parents were prepared to support them privately. I don't think the absolute privatisation of provision for education is supported by the Constitution though... or in parents or pupils best interests.

recedite wrote: »

Majority religions which are endowed by the state should not benefit from this state support, even if the majority seem happy with it.

Well, I certainly support the fact that the State doesn't endow any religions, majority or otherwise. I disagree that only secular schools should receive State support though, nor can I see any reasonable basis for the opinion.

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34921857
whether its compulsory in some schools...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education

I'm not sure that anything you've posted has anything to do with what I said?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not saying special interest schools shouldn't receive public funding; if they conform with the State Curriculum they should (like Raheen Wood Steiner National School), just like religious and secular schools. To fund one kind and withdraw funding from the others would be to impose a particular kind of school.

Now that the school is conforming to the curriculum, and is also open to all members of the public, it is no longer a school that is only suitable for a particular special interest group.
Compare to say, a school that teaches through the Polish or perhaps the German language, or a school that tries to indoctrinate kids into one particular religion.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Now that the school is conforming to the curriculum, and is also open to all members of the public, it is no longer a school that is only suitable for a particular special interest group.
Compare to say, a school that teaches through the Polish or perhaps the German language, or a school that tries to indoctrinate kids into one particular religion.

Sure; as long as they provide the State curriculum I'm happy with the State continuing to fund them all; even ones that try to indoctrinate kids with secular dogma.

expectationlost

3 articles in the Irish Times.
Non-Catholic in a Catholic school http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/non-catholic-in-a-catholic-school-1.2446488
Diarmaid Ferriter: Schools system is blatantly sectarian http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/diarmaid-ferriter-schools-system-is-blatantly-sectarian-1.2446555
Analysis: Constitutional rights mean change in school patronage is slow http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/analysis-constitutional-rights-mean-change-in-school-patronage-is-slow-1.2446458 what about constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion?

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

Analysis: Constitutional rights mean change in school patronage is slow http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/analysis-constitutional-rights-mean-change-in-school-patronage-is-slow-1.2446458 what about constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion?

What constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion?
A Constitutional right to to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school is a very far cry from a constitutional right to be not indoctrinated in religion.

RainyDay

Peregrinus wrote: »

In this context, I mean they are sufficiently religious to want to choose a school under religious patronage, which is what's relevant here.

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

Cabaal

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

Its the "done thing" don't you know

Shrap

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

I'm sure many don't "choose" at all. After all, in most areas, there is no choice. Therefore, they more likely just breathe a sigh of relief that they went along with the in-laws about getting their kiddies baptised, and just fit in with the status quo, same as they did with their church marriage and signing up their kiddies to a religion that means nothing more to them than "the done thing". But that's just speculation, eh?! :rolleyes: And of course is a fine way for a state education system to be run :pac:

expectationlost

Minister calls for other options to religion class http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1129/750102-minister-calls-for-other-options-to-religion-class/ still spinning the line that this is a problem thats only cropped up recently

Hotblack Desiato

If only Government Minsters had power, think of what they could do :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't think this is anything like a real measure of religious nature. Many people choose religious schools and religious events for reasons of tradition rather than religion.

False dichotomy, there. Religion can't be a tradition, or have a traditional component?

Shrap wrote: »

I'm sure many don't "choose" at all. After all, in most areas, there is no choice . . .

You're missing the point. We're not talking here about the schools that parents do choose, out of those actually available. We're talking about what type of school parents say they would choose, if the choice were there. A substantial majority indicate that they would prefer a school under religious patronage.

Delirium

Another article on the ongoing baptising for school access discussion.

Baptism: badge of identity or passport to education?

It is a noisy baptism day at a church in north Co Dublin. Parents, godparents, grandparents are gathered in the pews, resplendent in Sunday-best suits and colourful dresses.


Some of the parents are trying their best to keep control of their children. An older child is chewing on popcorn; another is absorbed with a game on a smartphone.


The priest, valiantly, explains how the sacrament of baptism is the most basic of all and the very basis for the Christian way of life.


“It’s like a day out at the movies,” says one less-than-impressed member of the congregation. “You’d wonder if some of the families have ever been in a church before.”


They’re sentiments Fr Gerry O’Connor is familiar with. He’s a priest in Cherry Orchard parish, a working class area where regular mass attendance is as low as 2 per cent of the Catholic population.


Yet the numbers who turn out for baptism, he estimates, could be approaching anywhere close to 90 per cent.


“It’s a tradition, a ritual. It’s a way of bringing the family together. I think that’s why we’ve an incredibly high turnout for baptisms,” he says.



“Some people who aren’t familiar with baptisms might think it’s noisy or children aren’t well-behaved. I enjoy the enthusiasm of it all. There might not be great religious practice, but people still feel a strong sense of connection to the church.”

RainyDay

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy, there. Religion can't be a tradition, or have a traditional component?

It's not an either/or dichotomy. Of course religion would have a traditional component, but you'd kind-of expect it to have a religious component too. I'm talking about families where there is effectively no religious component - and not practice of religion outside of the major ceremonies.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're missing the point. We're not talking here about the schools that parents do choose, out of those actually available. We're talking about what type of school parents say they would choose, if the choice were there. A substantial majority indicate that they would prefer a school under religious patronage.

Is that the majority of parents, or the majority of parents who bothered to turn out to vote on that issue?

Peregrinus

RainyDay wrote: »

It's not an either/or dichotomy. Of course religion would have a traditional component, but you'd kind-of expect it to have a religious component too. I'm talking about families where there is effectively no religious component - and not practice of religion outside of the major ceremonies.

Still with the false dichotomy! Why do you assume the religions component is not traditional, and the traditional component is not religious?

RainyDay wrote: »

Is that the majority of parents, or the majority of parents who bothered to turn out to vote on that issue?

It's the majority of parents who participated in the consultation. But I don't think you can assume that the ones who didn't participate all agreed with you, or even that they were more likely to agree with you than the ones that did. And as the pattern was fairly consistent. repeated in district after district, I don't think we can dismiss it as meaningless.

Zamboni

The Fine Gael/Labour coalition government voted down the repeal of Section 7.3 (c) of the Equal Status Act last night.
This would have removed the ability for a school to discriminate and rank children based on their parents religious beliefs.

Basically they had the chance to bring about equal access to schools for children of athiest or minority faith parents.
They said no.

Please remember this in the ballot box at the next general election.

Penn

Zamboni wrote: »

The Fine Gael/Labour coalition government voted down the repeal of Section 7.3 (c) of the Equal Status Act last night.
This would have removed the ability for a school to discriminate and rank children based on their parents religious beliefs.

Basically they had the chance to bring about equal access to schools for children of athiest or minority faith parents.
They said no.

Please remember this in the ballot box at the next general election.

Is there a way to see who exactly voted Yes/No?

Delirium

Penn wrote: »

Is there a way to see who exactly voted Yes/No?

Just checked, and it should be available here when the data for yesterday is posted to the site.

Just find the topic under the date to see a summary and then it should also have a link to list how all members voted.

Zamboni

Penn wrote: »

Is there a way to see who exactly voted Yes/No?

I'm trying to find that too.
I'll keep looking but would welcome anyone that has these details to post them.

Zamboni

Until the full detailed list is published by name check out this image from the voting system.

You can see completely red on government side.

Shrap

Zamboni wrote: »

Until the full detailed list is published by name check out this image from the voting system.

You can see completely red on government side.

This flies in the face of reason :mad: If they have something up their sleeve about the issue, it would be nice if they'd let us in on their thinking I mean, Aodhán Ó Ríordáin was all about it this year, am I wrong?

Penn

Equality, Eschmality. The Government has clearly shown that children's access to education is not equal to, and in fact is valued less than, maintaining the "ethos" of a school.

RainyDay

Zamboni wrote: »

The Fine Gael/Labour coalition government voted down the repeal of Section 7.3 (c) of the Equal Status Act last night.
This would have removed the ability for a school to discriminate and rank children based on their parents religious beliefs.

Basically they had the chance to bring about equal access to schools for children of athiest or minority faith parents.
They said no.

Please remember this in the ballot box at the next general election.

You don't get to change the constitution in Government. Only the people can change the Constitution.

Personally, I'd be a huge supporter of any change to remove the ability of schools to discriminate, but it is by no mean certain that such a constitutional change would get through. This government had no explicit mandate to move on this.

expectationlost

Parishes still paying for schools suppose to be used by state for divestment https://shar.es/1cI8sr via irish catholic says they offered p buidlings for divestment but now are stilll paying to maintenance of them based on these questions from colm keaveny td https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-11-24a.1245&s=schools+speaker%3A333#g1246.q (and https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-12-01a.1368&s=schools+speaker%3A333#g1369.q)

Delirium

https://twitter.com/emma_okelly/status/672524518485835777

expectationlost

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/emma_okelly/status/672524518485835777

well thats to be expected gov votes one way the opposition the other

Delirium

expectationlost wrote: »

well thats to be expected gov votes one way the opposition the other but looks like FF abstained not seeing any FF names in there?

Dara Calleary and Charlie McConalogue both voted No.

Hotblack Desiato

RainyDay wrote: »

You don't get to change the constitution in Government. Only the people can change the Constitution.

Nobody is proposing to change the constitution, because it's not required.

The provisions relating to religious organisations freely organising their own affairs refer to private institutions. Publicly funded schools are not 'their own affairs' and are already heavily regulated and overseen by the state. There is also a constitutional right to not be discriminated against by virtue of one's [non]belief.

This government had no explicit mandate to move on this.

It's in the Programme for Government, FFS!