School patronage

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The state is legally obliged to provide education from a constitutional point of view. From my reading there is no obligation on the state to have a preferred brand of religion and there is no legal obstacle to the state removing religion as means of prioritisation on school places.

Certainly the State has a Constitutional obligation to provide for education, but I don't think anyone has even suggested that it could or should have an obligation to have a preferred brand of religion, have they? What obstacles there are to the State enforcing school choices would certainly be worth discussing if it appeared the State had any desire to interfere with parents choices in such a fashion, but since no one has pointed out that the State feels it has any such mandate, it's of dubious merit at the moment I'd say.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

As for from an ethical angle that word is so vague as to be useless in this discussion. Where are these ethics codified that the government must adhere to?

I would suggest that the ethical obligations on the State are codified in our Constitution, would you not agree? That is where we set out the standards we demand of our nation, and it's that moral framework from which our laws derive. I would have said that ethics are fundamental to the discussion.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Agreeing that wrongful discrimination is wrong is wonderful. What does it mean though. Wrong to whom, to me or you or legally as defined by the state?
In order to actually answer my question I need to you to specifically address the area I raised.

I don't think you do to be honest. You may consider something to be wrong, I may do so as well, and the State might well agree or disagree with either of us. Right and wrong are ethical concepts (so you see why I think ethics are fundamental to the discussion), and it is the State's job to apply those concepts as they are generally held by the society it represents; frequently by legally defining them.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I asked you specifically about the provisions for discrimination on religious grounds which are contained in the equal status act. I was asking whether in your opinion society in Ireland by removing said provisions would be better served. You didn't answer that question so let me try again. Would Irish society be in a better position in your opinion if prioritisation based on Religious belief was allowed in such areas for example as employment and provision of services?

You did, and don't you think it's an odd question? I mean, you've read the thread I assume, so you know I've never espoused the opinion you're asking about. If it's your opinion, why don't you provide your rationale for thinking it to be so? If it's someone else's, can you give us their rationale? In the meantime, I'd suggest, as I did, that a moderate, thoughtful, and sensible approach should be the methodology in such things. That would make me no more in favour of absolute freedom to discriminate than I am of absolute banning of discrimination. I would certainly think obliging a Catholic Church to give a job as Parish Priest to a Muslim, or forcing a halal butcher to provide black puddings to customers would not be moderate, thoughtful, or sensible, by way of examples.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Age discrimination is age discrimination. It's an oxymoron to say that it's not. Yet every school in the country practices age discrimination.

Simply identifying a particular practice as "discrmination" does not establish that it is wrong. Putting a tick beside the correct answer and an 'x' beside the incorrect answer requires a teacher to discriminate between the correct and incorrect answer; should the practice be banned?

I see you have borrowed Absolam's banana skin now.
Discrimination between correct and incorrect exam papers is not a grounds listed in the bill as being banned.
Neither is age mentioned. Therefore a child cannot be refused entry to a school for being the wrong age. (I'm not sure if an adult has ever applied for admission to a school as a pupil)

Absolam wrote: »

So, it is racial discrimination, and it's legally sanctioned. We see then, that racial, gender, religious, or any other discrimination on the nine grounds isn't necessarily wrong, or illegal, or 'discrimination' per the Act; context appears to be quite relevant.

Can I just remind you that your example of legally sanctioned racial discrimination came from an Indian reservation, somewhere in the USA I believe, although I haven't checked the veracity of the claim.
Therefore, racial discrimination is still not allowed under the Act, and Apaches, Sioux, Navajo etc are not entitled to get priority admission to Irish schools.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I see you have borrowed Absolam's banana skin now. Discrimination between correct and incorrect exam papers is not a grounds listed in the bill as being banned. Neither is age mentioned. Therefore a child cannot be refused entry to a school for being the wrong age. (I'm not sure if an adult has ever applied for admission to a school as a pupil)

But age discrimination is age discrimination, isn't it? The Equal Status Act certainly mentions age as a ground for discrimination;
"(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are: <...>
(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),"
And children are routinely refused admission if they are the wrong age... expectationlosts Scoil Sinead for example "The school will cater for children between the age of 12 and 18 years."

recedite wrote: »

Can I just remind you that your example of legally sanctioned racial discrimination came from an Indian reservation, somewhere in the USA I believe, although I haven't checked the veracity of the claim. Therefore, racial discrimination is still not allowed under the Act, and Apaches, Sioux, Navajo etc are not entitled to get priority admission to Irish schools.

I don't think anyone suggested that Native Americans are entitled to get priority admission to Irish schools? Only that it can be illegal to discriminate on religious or racial grounds, and yet that does not mean it will in all circumstances be illegal to prefer people on those grounds; so Native Americans may be preferred for jobs near reservations in the US, and Catholics may be preferred for places in Catholic schools in Ireland, all without even a hint of oxymorons.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I see you have borrowed Absolam's banana skin now.
Discrimination between correct and incorrect exam papers is not a grounds listed in the bill as being banned.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is wrong if the law bans it but, if it’s not banned, it’s not wrong.

The objections here are obvious. Currently, selecting applicants on the basis of religion is not banned - in fact, it’s explicitly permitted. Therefore, it’s not wrong. Simply saying that it’s discrimination is true, but trivial; it does nothing to change the fact that it’s permitted by law and, therefore, following your apparent reasoning, is not wrong.

The other and more serious objection is that, if we are trying to think about what discrimination the law should permit, and what it should forbid, we can’t reason towards that by looking at what the law already does permit or forbid; that would be circular.

The issue here is whether discrimination on the grounds of religion should be permitted in school admission policies. It currently is permitted and, if I take your argument above seriously, that should dispose of the question. But I don’t take it seriously. Your other argument boils down to “it’s discrmination! Saying otherwise is an oxymoron!”, to which the response is yes, we know it’s discrmination. The question is whether it’s a form of discrimination which we should make unlawful - which, so far, we haven’t done.

recedite wrote: »

Neither is age mentioned. Therefore a child cannot be refused entry to a school for being the wrong age. (I'm not sure if an adult has ever applied for admission to a school as a pupil) /QUOTE]
A child certainly can be refused entry to school for being the wrong age. It’s absolutely routine. (“Come back next year, when little Johnny has turned 4”. “We have no space in class 6, I’m afraid. We have a space in class 4, but Mary is too old for that. That space will go to Sean instead, because he’s the right age.”)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

You seem to be saying that discrimination is wrong if the law bans it but, if it’s not banned, it’s not wrong.

Eh, no. I believe that has been Absolam's consistent argument.

...selecting applicants on the basis of religion is not banned - in fact, it’s explicitly permitted. Therefore, it’s not wrong.

I'm saying it is wrong. The proposed law says religious discrimination is not allowed but also allowed; therefore an oxymoron, and those who support or propose such a law are asses.
My position is fairly simple, and not as complicated as you are trying to make out.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Eh, no. I believe that has been Absolam's consistent argument.

Why? I never said any such thing....

recedite wrote: »

I'm saying it is wrong. The proposed law says religious discrimination is not allowed but also allowed; therefore an oxymoron, and those who support or propose such a law are asses.
My position is fairly simple, and not as complicated as you are trying to make out.

But it doesn't say that at all? Seems to be a recurring theme here...

Firstly, the Bill discusses school admission policies, and what they must place in their admission statement; it's not a proposal to allow or disallow discrimination of any sort.

Secondly, where it does deal with discrimination on religious grounds,it is quite explicit;
Admission statement
61.
(1)
Subject to subsection (2), the admission policy of a school shall
include a statement (in this Part referred to as an ‘admission
statement’) that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a
student to the school on <...>(e) the religion ground of the student or the applicant in respect of the student concerned,
Seems pretty clear that the statement is subject to subsection (2) there, would you not say? And subsection (2) says
(2)
In the case of <...>
(b)
a school to which section 7(3)(c) of the Act of 2000 applies, whose
objective is to provide education in an environment which
promotes certain religious values, the admission statement of the
school shall include a statement that the school does not
discriminate in relation to the admission of students where 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.

A school which is not legally obliged by the Equal Status Act not to prefer students by religion must make a different statement from one which is... not a word about religious discrimination is not allowed but also allowed. The Bill simply adheres to what the Act sets out as legal discrimination and illegal discrimination.

recedite

A new Islamic campus is in the pipeline for Corduff near Blanchardstown.
It will include a mosque, a primary school, a secondary school, plus additional 14 classrooms inside the mosque; all private. This despite millions of tax euros being spent on new schools in the area over the last few years, including Educate Together. It won't be funded or closely monitored by Dept of Education.
Described as monumental in scale by the planners.

The background to this is a Dublin surgeon who was unable to find a suitable education for his own children in Ireland, so sent them to a place in the UK which has all but been abandoned by native English people. Tragically they all died after being innocently caught up in a turf war between rival black and asian gangs.

Funding for the project appears to come largely from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
The full planning application is here, mostly technical spec and details.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

A new Islamic campus is in the pipeline for Corduff near Blanchardstown. It will include a mosque, a primary school, a secondary school, plus additional 14 classrooms inside the mosque; all private. This despite millions of tax euros being spent on new schools in the area over the last few years, including Educate Together. It won't be funded or closely monitored by Dept of Education.
Described as monumental in scale by the planners.

Described as monumental in scale by the Fingal County Council Architect to be fair, not the planners of the building. And it's not really despite the money spent by the State on new schools, is it? It's more in addition to... and we can hardly say that people investing in education is a bad thing. Can we?

recedite wrote: »

Funding for the project appears to come largely from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Does the article not actually say "Dr Taufiq said the purchase of Warrenstown House, a former HSE premises, was paid for from family funds. He has offers of financial support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia as well as Leicester for the new development."? Which appears to say that he has paid for the premises, and has offers of funding for the development. Not that the funding has come (largely or otherwise) from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

But the bright side is; another school and additional choice for parents which wouldn't be available if it weren't for private enterprise. Good news for the community, surely?

recedite

Just to clarify, by "planners" I meant the professional planning staff in the planning dept.

Good news? Well I suppose it depends on how you look at these things and what your agenda is.

At least they won't be getting taxpayers money; that much is good.

recedite

In my ideal system, immigration would be points based and people would be vetted, like the Australian system. I would assist any foreigners coming here by giving them a once off "welcome package" to help them set up a new home, and after that treat them the same as anybody else.

A policy of integration and equality would be rigorously enforced.
Segregation and multiculturalism would be discouraged.

They new arrivals would have no difficulty getting their kids admitted to their local school. And just as importantly, they would have no reason not to send their kids to the local school.

I would not tolerate a situation where the Leaving Cert points requirement for studying medicine is so high that it is almost impossible for Irish kids to get into it, yet many of the foreign qualified doctors that we employ instead end up in the courts for malpractice, being poorly trained and incompetent (with no reflection on this particular guy; there are others regularly in the news)

And I would not allow foreign governments or donors to fund activities in the state which might be contrary to the ideals and the values of this state.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Just to clarify, by "planners" I meant the professional planning staff in the planning dept.

Not the architect who wrote the report?

recedite wrote: »

Good news? Well I suppose it depends on how you look at these things and what your agenda is. At least they won't be getting taxpayers money; that much is good.

Does one need an agenda to consider additional schools worth applauding? I woulnd't have thought so. But then I wouldn't make such firm predictions about the future either; if they can demonstrate they're fulfilling demand, there's no reason they wouldn't get funding from the DoE if they wanted, is there? And there are couple of reasons they would....

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

In my ideal system, <...> I would not allow foreign governments or donors to fund activities in the state which might be contrary to the ideals and the values of this state.

I'm sure that will look great on your election manifesto I can only imagine (as I'm sure that's all you're doing) the activities you believe are being funded by foreigners (filthy devils probably don't even take baths, eh!) which are contrary to the ideals and the values of this state. Or more likely, aren't in line with what you wish the ideals and the values of this state were.

crucamim

The Catholic Church should continue to control the schools which it owns - all the schools which it owns. It should also continue to own all the schools which it owns.
The people who do not like Catholic schools can establish their own secularist schools. Presumably, those secular schools will receive payments from the State for educating the children of some residents of the State - just as Catholic schools receive payment, just as Protestant schools do, just as Irish medium schools do.
In a Catholic school, non-Catholics have no right to equality with Catholics. A Catholic school should not turn away the child of Catholics so that it can accept the child of non-Catholics.
It is about time that secularists learned to respect private property and also respect the right of Catholics to be Catholics.

PopePalpatine

Yeah, I'm sure anyone with the misfortune to be a non-Catholic in the middle of nowhere, where the nearest non-Catholic could be an hour's round trip, appreciate your empty platitudes.

What exactly about making every publicly-funded school secular threatens Catholics' right to religion, anyway?

crucamim

Where did you get the idea that solving the problems of non-Catholics is the responsibility of Catholics? What did they do for us?
As for your question about the threat posed to Catholics by making Catholic schools secular, please leave judgement on that matter to Catholics. Perhaps you are not aware that Catholic schools exist to promote Catholicism.

crucamim

Double post.

PopePalpatine

If you want Catholic schools to promote Catholicism, don't ask a state which calls itself a republic for the taxpayers' money.

I bet if Northern Ireland was still an apartheid state run for the benefit of Protestants, you wouldn't like it if their response was, "What have the Papists ever done for us Protestants?"

Hotblack Desiato

crucamim wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that solving the problems of non-Catholics is the responsibility of Catholics? What did they do for us?
As for your question about the threat posed to Catholics by making Catholic schools secular, please leave judgement on that matter to Catholics. Perhaps you are not aware that Catholic schools exist to promote Catholicism.

Pathetic guff.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What exactly about making every publicly-funded school secular threatens Catholics' right to religion, anyway?

Well.. I don't think anyone has actually said it does threaten Catholic's right to religion; I think you're probably making that up yourself.

However, given that parents are entitled to provide religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State, forcing every publicly funded school to be a secular school would prevent parents (not just Catholic ones, but all parents who don't want just a secular education for their children) providing the education they want to in schools recognised or established by the State. So making every publicly funded school secular does infringe on everyone's Constitutional rights, whether or not people want to exercise those rights.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Pathetic guff.

Worthless platitude

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Worthless platitute

Did you mean worthless prostitute, or worthless platitude ?

crucamim

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If you want Catholic schools to promote Catholicism, don't ask a state which calls itself a republic for the taxpayers' money.

I bet if Northern Ireland was still an apartheid state run for the benefit of Protestants, you wouldn't like it if their response was, "What have the Papists ever done for us Protestants?"

You seem to be insinuating that in "a State which calls itself a republic" Catholics should have to pay tax to educate the children of non-Catholics while educating their own children entirely from their own resources. Dream on.

P.S. Please stop trying to derail this thread by references to Northern Ireland. If you really must mention Northern Ireland, I resent your attempt to equate Northern Ireland Catholics seeking equality with Protestants in Northern Ireland, our ancestral homeland, with non-Catholics of Eire seeking equality with Catholics in a Catholic school. How can you be so low? I also resent your insinuating that Prods in Northern Ireland gave equality to Catholics. Every reform in Northern Ireland was imposed on the Prods by the UK government and, sometimes, by the UK Parliament. I also resent your insinuation that Prod privilege in Northern Ireland is entirely in the past.

PopePalpatine

crucamim wrote: »

You seem to be insinuating that in "a State which calls itself a republic" Catholics should have to pay tax to educate the children of non-Catholics while educating their own children entirely from their own resources. Dream on.

Catholics won't be educating their own children entirely from their own resources, that's what the schools are for.

Besides, you and I, and pretty much anyone who contributes taxes is paying for something they won't get to use, for example arts grants.

crucamim

PopePalpatine wrote: »

crucamim wrote: »

You seem to be insinuating that in "a State which calls itself a republic" Catholics should have to pay tax to educate the children of non-Catholics while educating their own children entirely from their own resources. Dream on.

Catholics won't be educating their own children entirely from their own resources, that's what the schools are for.

Besides, you and I, and pretty much anyone who contributes taxes is paying for something they won't get to use, for example arts grants.

You seemed to have suggested that, if Catholic schools promote Catholicism, Catholics should not expect their schools to receive payment from the State for services rendered - i.e. educating the children of some residents of the State. This latest post of yours seems to have rowed back from that anti-Catholic suggestion.

PopePalpatine

I have not rowed back from my position that religious schools shouldn't be publicly-funded. There's nothing stopping Catholic parents sending their kids to a secular school.

crucamim

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I have not rowed back from my position that religious schools shouldn't be publicly-funded. There's nothing stopping Catholic parents sending their kids to a secular school.

So you think that the State should spend more on the education of a child who is taught in a secular school than it spends on the education of a child who is taught in a Catholic school.
There is plenty stopping Catholics sending their child to a secular school. They want their child taught in a Catholic school. Please respect parental choice and the right of Catholics to be Catholics without their being financially penalised.

PopePalpatine

Yes, I think that the State should spend more on the schools it would own that the schools it wouldn't.

crucamim

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, I think that the State should spend more on the schools it would own that the schools it wouldn't.

At least you are honest. Why not form a political party to advance that anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant agenda?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Did you mean worthless prostitute, or worthless platitude ?

Platitude! I've no reason whatsoever to think Hotblack is being paid to shill a viewpoint

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, I think that the State should spend more on the schools it would own that the schools it wouldn't.

Why? What's so special about the State owning schools?