School patronage

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Ah, leave him alone, he's having to, kinda, slither uphill. Its not easy to keep stretching for more and more fragile arguments. (I think that's pretty much a complete metaphor mix there .)

Do you feel like it's been long enough that you can ignore the last disastrous argument you put forward already? I'm pretty sure it wasn't me that was stretching in fairness

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. If they all didn't lie though.... then maybe they wouldn't have to lie? It certainly seems people will do whatever they think they need to in order to get the school place they want for their child, in religious ethos schools no less.

Yes, people will go to great lengths to ensure their children get a place in their local state funded school, including suffering religious discrimination.

I still can't see anything about religious schools preferring religious pupils though, even if parents behave in a somewhat shameful way to get their children into them; you have to have at least a little forgiveness for parents who only want the best for their children, don't you?

You can't see it, or you won't see it? It has been presented to you time and again. One more time so, maybe read this article The UN has called Ireland out on religious schools’ ‘discriminatory admissions policies’

Religious discrimination in Ireland as raised by the UN. Shameful. And yes, my sympathies are very much with parents who are being discriminated against in this manner.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. If they all didn't lie though.... then maybe they wouldn't have to lie? It certainly seems people will do whatever they think they need to in order to get the school place they want for their child, in religious ethos schools no less.
I still can't see anything about religious schools preferring religious pupils though, even if parents behave in a somewhat shameful way to get their children into them; you have to have at least a little forgiveness for parents who only want the best for their children, don't you?

Absolam wrote: »

Not my choice of words... Smacl again I'm afraid. Starting to sound like you have it in for the arguments he's presenting

Rubbish. I pointed out that parents have no option but to lie in order to get a school place for their children. It was you who called them out as shameful for doing so.

I have called out the repeated religious discrimination in our school system as shameful.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Yes, people will go to great lengths to ensure their children get a place in their local state funded school, including suffering religious discrimination.

Surely if they're pretending to be a religion in order to prevent other parents getting places ahead of them, they're perpetrating religious discrimination? All to get their children into a denominational school of their choice....

smacl wrote: »

You can't see it, or you won't see it? It has been presented to you time and again. One more time so, maybe read this article The UN has called Ireland out on religious schools’ ‘discriminatory admissions policies’

Well, in that particular case I was trying to say I can't see anything wrong with religious schools preferring religious pupils... Even I make typos occasionally. Your link doesn't work I'm afraid... so I can't really comment on the 'calling out'. I certainly recall the UN saying Ireland needed more non denominational schools, and I would absolutely laud anyone who chooses to set one up.

smacl wrote: »

Religious discrimination in Ireland as raised by the UN. Shameful. And yes, my sympathies are very much with parents who are being discriminated against in this manner.

I'll worry about the children who aren't getting school places, I'm not so worried about parents who don't get the school places they want, particularly in schools whose ethos they disagree with.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. I pointed out that parents have no option but to lie in order to get a school place for their children. It was you who called them out as shameful for doing so. I have called out the repeated religious discrimination in our school system as shameful.

You have indeed... It's entirely your idea that the ever so Catholic notion of shame should be applied here... But apparently only to people you disagree with . So you present the odd notion that its shameful that some people should seek to be true to their ideals, but to abandon idealism in order to get what you want isn't? A very odd perspective on what is shameful for sure.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Do you feel like it's been long enough that you can ignore the last disastrous argument you put forward already? I'm pretty sure it wasn't me that was stretching in fairness

Nothing to do with 'fairness', more an adjustment down to the level of discussion being offered. And now I am out, of this discussion anyway, you win, you have done what you set out to do, which is bore people out of A&A.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Nothing to do with 'fairness', more an adjustment down to the level of discussion being offered. And now I am out, of this discussion anyway, you win, you have done what you set out to do, which is bore people out of A&A.

Sure.. I can understand wanting to walk out with dignity, it certainly beats storming off after being reduced to your usual ad hominems. Oops.. Sorry, missed the attack on my motivation there. So par for the course then... Ad hominem and exit for a while. Oh well.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Well, in that particular case I was trying to say I can't see anything wrong with religious schools preferring religious pupils...

And by providing such preferential treatment to one group you are discriminating against another group, and using the taxpayers money to fund this discrimination.

Even I make typos occasionally. Your link doesn't work I'm afraid... so I can't really comment on the 'calling out'. I certainly recall the UN saying Ireland needed more non denominational schools, and I would absolutely laud anyone who chooses to set one up.

Let me refresh your memory, from the Convention on the Rights of the Child report;

UN wrote:

61.The Committee encourages the State party to take fully into consideration the recommendations made by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/IRL/CO/2, para. 18) which encourages the promotion of the establishment of non-denominational or multidenominational schools and to amend the existing legislative framework to eliminate discrimination in school admissions.

I'll worry about the children who aren't getting school places, I'm not so worried about parents who don't get the school places they want, particularly in schools whose ethos they disagree with.

I don't for a moment doubt you'll continue to fight for this discriminatory practise while trying to dress it up as something different.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

You have indeed... It's entirely your idea that the ever so Catholic notion of shame should be applied here... But apparently only to people you disagree with . So you present the odd notion that its shameful that some people should seek to be true to their ideals, but to abandon idealism in order to get what you want isn't? A very odd perspective on what is shameful for sure.

As your brand of idealism promotes discrimination, then yes, I call it shameful.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Sure.. I can understand wanting to walk out with dignity, it certainly beats storming off after being reduced to your usual ad hominems. Oops.. Sorry, missed the attack on my motivation there. So par for the course then... Ad hominem and exit for a while. Oh well.

Which is of course an ad hom itself :rolleyes:

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

And by providing such preferential treatment to one group you are discriminating against another group, and using the taxpayers money to fund this discrimination.

Well, as you've shown, there's no advantage in any such preference if there is no lack of provision; everyone still gets a school place. The fact that you would rather see preference by address (or any other criteria for choosing pupils) than by religion only tells us how you'd run a school if you wanted to; there's no reason people who actually do run schools need prefer your opinion over their own.

smacl wrote: »

Let me refresh your memory, from the Convention on the Rights of the Child report;

That's calling out? Looks more like an encouragement to me... It even says they encourage us to consider the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination... to eliminate discrimination in school admissions. As 'calling out' goes I'm not sure it's even up there with your 'shameful' comments. But still, we can all agree with them that promoting the establishment of non and multi denominational schools is a good thing, maybe it will encourage someone to do so.

smacl wrote: »

I don't for a moment doubt you'll continue to fight for this discriminatory practise while trying to dress it up as something different.

of course not... It's a bit tough to think that someone would just flat out disagree with you and say this discriminatory practice is perfectly fine, eh?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Which is of course an ad hom itself :rolleyes:

You know better than that... I'm perfectly happy to quote the posts I'm referring to, I'll let posters decide for themselves whether those usual posts say anything about the poster

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

As your brand of idealism promotes discrimination, then yes, I call it shameful.

Actually, my brand of idealism doesn't promote discrimination, it simply admits that in a free society people are free to choose the ethos they want to impart to their children, and that as a nation we've placed that freedom in our Constitution and obliged our State to support it. I'm happy for everyone to have that freedom; all religions and none. I call it shameful when people try to usurp that in the name of their own prejudices.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

That's calling out?

That's what the headline reads, so in case the link is still broken;



Encouraging the state to 'amend the existing legislative framework to eliminate discrimination in school admissions' acknowledges that the UN is both aware of this discrimination and would like the Irish government to do something about it.

You might pretend that it is not discrimination, but that is not the view of the UN.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

Why not? Apparently there wouldn't be enough 'real' adherents of the religion, so they should be fine, shouldn't they? It seems it may be the people pretending to be religious rather than the people who are religious at the root of the problem you think exists.

You stated before that it was a resourcing issue.
Now you stated above that people pretending to be religious were at the root of the problem?
Witch is it?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

That's what the headline reads, so in case the link is still broken;

All you had to say was it isn't your misrepresentation

smacl wrote: »

Encouraging the state to 'amend the existing legislative framework to eliminate discrimination in school admissions' acknowledges that the UN is both aware of this discrimination and would like the Irish government to do something about it. You might pretend that it is not discrimination, but that is not the view of the UN.

Ah now... I think a UN Committee isn't quite 'the UN', but I see you're falling into repeating the Journals hyperbolic terminology again! But you know well I didn't pretend anything... I clearly said I just flat out disagree with you and say this discriminatory practice is perfectly fine, didn't I?

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

You stated before that it was a resourcing issue.
Now you stated above that people pretending to be religious were at the root of the problem?
Witch is it?

It certainly seems to depend on your point of view right enough. Maybe it depends on what it is you're using to argue that you're not getting what you want? It certainly seems to me that if children weren't getting school places then we would have a resourcing issue, but I'm not aware of any children not in school. And if people were lying to get children into schools and thereby preventing non lying people from getting into them, that would seem to be a problem... But I don't think Smacl gave us any evidence this actually happens, so maybe it's not either. Perhaps, all in all, there is no problem, and some people just need to make a bit more effort to get the things they want?

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

It certainly seems to depend on your point of view right enough. Maybe it depends on what it is you're using to argue that you're not getting what you want? It certainly seems to me that if children weren't getting school places then we would have a resourcing issue, but I'm not aware of any children not in school. And if people were lying to get children into schools and thereby preventing non lying people from getting into them, that would seem to be a problem... But I don't think Smacl gave us any evidence this actually happens, so maybe it's not either. Perhaps, all in all, there is no problem, and some people just need to make a bit more effort to get the things they want?

Would you say that those who are 'lying' are getting an unfair advantage ?

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Would you say that those who are 'lying' are getting an unfair advantage ?

Not as far as I can tell, but I think you might get more info from Smacl. If they are.... Well, it might be a resourcing issue

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I clearly said I just flat out disagree with you and say this discriminatory practice is perfectly fine, didn't I?

First time you've acknowledged it as discrimination and that you support it as such. For a while there, you seemed to be pretending it wasn't discrimination.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

And if people were lying to get children into schools and thereby preventing non lying people from getting into them, that would seem to be a problem... But I don't think Smacl gave us any evidence this actually happens, so maybe it's not either.

Maybe I just imagined it, though Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has publicly acknowledged it as a problem. Are you playing lets pretend again?

DM wrote:

The practice of parents and priests baptising children just so they can get access to schools is wrong, Catholic Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said. The Archbishop said the church’s canon law states that people “should only be baptised if there’s a reasonable probability that they will be brought up as Catholics”. “It is not this baptismal certificate. It’s a religious rite of entry to the life of the church and to baptise somebody for any other reason is wrong,” he said.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

First time you've acknowledged it as discrimination and that you support it as such. For a while there, you seemed to be pretending it wasn't discrimination.

Thats not true at all . I've always said it's as valid as any other discrimination, whether that that be by location, sex, ability, whatever. As long as it's not illegal, discrimination is a neccasary function in just about everything.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Maybe I just imagined it, though Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has publicly acknowledged it as a problem. Are you playing lets pretend again?

I though he said it was wrong to misrepresent your beliefs by baptising your children. He certainly doesn't seem to say that people doing it are stopping other people getting into schools in that article. Are you playing lets misrepresent again?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Thats not true at all . I've always said it's as valid as any other discrimination, whether that that be by location, sex, ability, whatever. As long as it's not illegal, discrimination is a neccasary function in just about everything.

So religious discrimination, sexual discrimination etc... are all fair game once they manage to stay within the law? It really is no wonder that people in this country are abandoning the Catholic church. In today's Ireland I'd suggest we're better than than that and aspire to treat people fairly and equally regardless of colour, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

T As long as it's not illegal, discrimination is a neccasary function in just about everything.

Ignorant statement of the year winner here. Who (politicians? the majority?) or what (constitution?) determines legality? Recent history is full of examples of discrimination that were sanctioned by the law.

Godwin to save time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Absolam wrote: »

T As long as it's not illegal, discrimination is a neccasary function in just about everything.

Ignorant statement of the year winner here. Who (politicians? the majority?) or what (constitution?) determines legality? Recent history is full of examples of discrimination that were sanctioned by the law.

Godwin to save time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Ah I'm sure you won't have to venture much further than Wikipedia to cure your ignorance of who determines legality :-)

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Absolam wrote: »

Thats not true at all . I've always said it's as valid as any other discrimination, whether that that be by location, sex, ability, whatever. As long as it's not illegal, discrimination is a neccasary function in just about everything.

So religious discrimination, sexual discrimination etc... are all fair game once they manage to stay within the law? It really is no wonder that people in this country are abandoning the Catholic church. In today's Ireland I'd suggest we're better than than that and aspire to treat people fairly and equally regardless of colour, creed, gender, or sexual orientation.

If we feel discrimination is sufficiently at odds with our society we can make it illegal. Until then, what you eat for breakfast and who you choose for your friends is discrimination entirely at your own whim without fear of censure. Well.. Legal censure anyway. You'll always have to put up with opinions I hope.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Maybe I just imagined it, though Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has publicly acknowledged it as a problem. Are you playing lets pretend again?

Diarmuid Martin mandated that RC ethos schools in his diocese which did not alreadly proritise catholics began to do so. Utter hypocrite but like Frankie he has a great PR image.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

If we feel discrimination is sufficiently at odds with our society we can make it illegal.

Religious discrimination in schools is illegal. But there is a loophole in equality legislation (still hanging in there, just about) that allows an exemption for those with a religious ethos.
So if something is normally illegal, then society is saying its a bad thing.
If there is a loophole or an exemption, there should be a good reason.
Not very many people think that the reason is good enough; ie to facilitate those who want a taxpayer funded religious education specific to their own personal religious ethos, which is to the disadvantage of others.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Religious discrimination in schools is illegal. But there is a loophole in equality legislation (still hanging in there, just about) that allows an exemption for those with a religious ethos.

so that loophole... That's a legal provision, yes? Making religious discrimination in schools not illegal. Religious discrimination is schools is not illegal is what you should have said so; at least insofar as the kind of religious discrimination we're talking about goes.

recedite wrote: »

So if something is normally illegal, then society is saying its a bad thing.
If there is a loophole or an exemption, there should be a good reason.
Not very many people think that the reason is good enough; ie to facilitate those who want a taxpayer funded religious education specific to their own personal religious ethos, which is to the disadvantage of others.

Nothing is normally illegal; we pass laws which make things illegal, and we ensure those laws don't cover areas where we don't want the law to make that thing illegal. If enough people want those areas to be illegal as well they can lobby their TDs and try to change it, and if enough do it their TDs might try. Unless what they want to change is protected by the Constitution of course