School patronage

PopePalpatine

crucamim wrote: »

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

There's already parties in this country which share my view on loosening the RCC's iron grip on this country, you're grand.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

There's already parties in this country which share my view on loosening the RCC's iron grip on this country, you're grand.

I don't think any of them share your view that religious schools should be deprived of public funding, thankfully :P

recedite

crucamim wrote: »

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.

If I paraphrase your argument and put it into the general context of the state funding public services...

So you think that the State should spend more on the public health service than on subsidising private treatment?
There is plenty stopping private patients sending their child to a public hospital. They want their child treated in a private hospital. Please respect parental choice and the right of private patients to be private patients without their being financially penalised.

You can have special treatment, wacky treatment, exclusivity etc.. if you want, but you pay for it after you have already contributed to the basic public facility which treats all citizens equally.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If I paraphrase your argument and put it into the general context of the state funding public services...
You can have special treatment, wacky treatment, exclusivity etc.. if you want, but you pay for it after you have already contributed to the basic public facility which treats all citizens equally.

I don't think you've added any merit to that analogy since the last time it was refuted, to be fair.

It does occur to me that if our health service had to provide services in the same way as the education service does, it would probably operate a lot more like our education service does. The same might well go for other public services, like forestry for example. So if you wanted education to operate like health, you'd probably need to make it more like health; people (patients/students) might only engage with it a couple of times a year, if they needed any specialist assistance they'd be waiting a year or two to see a qualified teacher about it, emergency issues could be triaged and left waiting in corridors. Certainly the entire population couldn't have a reasonable expectation of spending most of their waking life for twelve or so years in hospitals without some extraordinarily huge capital expenditure to facilitate them. I wonder would the government look for partners to assist in providing that, and what they would want in return.

recedite

Your rebuttal was simply a mish-mash of your own personal opinions interspersed with quotes from the Constitution, which you felt constituted an irrefutable and totally bulletproof response.

But your own opinions on school admissions have been constantly challenged and found wanting here on equality and public policy grounds.

As for your assertion that the Constitution backs them up, I leave that to a senior counsel to refute.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Your rebuttal was simply a mish-mash of your own personal opinions interspersed with quotes from the Constitution, which you felt constituted an irrefutable and totally bulletproof response.

I do recall that when you responded in (precisely) the same vein;

recedite wrote: »

Its a mish-mash of extracts from the Constitution (which supposedly makes it irrefutable) combined with his own assertions (which modify and clarify those extracts to suit his own particular point of view)

and I replied that that's fairly close I suppose (Though to be fair, you were the one making the claims that it was supposedly irrefutable, not me. And no one said a word about bulletproof, even if you couldn't manage to shoot it down). I did go on to say that if we were to frame a discussion about the use of hospitals according to the framework which exists for the use of schools, that would be how it would look, was the point I was trying to get across. Not that such a framework is irrefutable, but it is it the existing context, modified to suit Gebgbegbs premise. I'm not sure it necessarily suits my point of view; I wouldn't be inclined to the view, as I said, that hospitals are any more analogous to schools than they are to forestry services.

That was about where you abandoned your support of the analogy back then; are you thinking you might be in a position to continue the discussion now? Have you concluded it's not irrefutable (or bulletproof)? Or would you like to just abandon it again like the last time?

recedite wrote: »

But your own opinions on school admissions have been constantly challenged and found wanting here on equality and public policy grounds.

Well.. you've certainly objected to them on what you believe ought to be equality and public policy grounds, but that's not really the same thing, is it?

recedite wrote: »

As for your assertion that the Constitution backs them up, I leave that to a senior counsel to refute.

Can you point out where he refutes my opinions? He's offering an opinion on whether the repeal of section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 would give rise to constitutional difficulties, and I can't recall that I offered an opinion on that myself....

expectationlost

ET has got permission to use the old town hall in Castlebar for a school for the moment as long as they fence off the play area etc etc http://www.mayonews.ie/news/29027-castlebar-educate-together-school-gets-planning-permission#.WD2cAkqm5Is.twitter what a scrap for a pittance

crucamim

recedite wrote: »

crucamim wrote: »

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.

If I paraphrase your argument and put it into the general context of the state funding public services...

So you think that the State should spend more on the public health service than on subsidising private treatment?  
There is plenty stopping private patients sending their child to a public hospital.  They want their child treated in a private hospital.  Please  respect parental choice and the right of private patients to be private patients without their being financially penalised.

You can have special treatment, wacky treatment, exclusivity etc.. if you want, but you pay for it after you have already contributed to the basic public facility which treats all citizens equally.

recedite wrote: »

crucamim wrote: »

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.

If I paraphrase your argument and put it into the general context of the state funding public services...

So you think that the State should spend more on the public health service than on subsidising private treatment?  
There is plenty stopping private patients sending their child to a public hospital.  They want their child treated in a private hospital.  Please  respect parental choice and the right of private patients to be private patients without their being financially penalised.

You can have special treatment, wacky treatment, exclusivity etc.. if you want, but you pay for it after you have already contributed to the basic public facility which treats all citizens equally.

So you think Catholics should pay tax to educate your children while educating their own children at their own expense. Catholics might be very cross about such a suggestion and Catholics have voting rights and politicians do not like losing elections.

Delirium

crucamim wrote: »

So you think Catholics should pay tax to educate your children while educating their own children at their own expense. Catholics might be very cross about such a suggestion and Catholics have voting rights and politicians do not like losing elections.

Not all Catholics object to a more inclusive school system.

PopePalpatine

crucamim wrote: »

So you think Catholics should pay tax to educate your children while educating their own children at their own expense. Catholics might be very cross about such a suggestion and Catholics have voting rights and politicians do not like losing elections.

They'd be paying tax to educate all children, including their own.

It's like paying tax to maintain the health service - you're entitled to pay for your own private treatment (or pay a homeopath if you fall for that sort of stuff) if you feel that's not good enough for you.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

Not all Catholics object to a more inclusive school system.

I suspect the vast majority of Catholics (and Protestants, Muslims, Atheists etc etc) support the notion of an inclusive school system, as long as it includes what they want the way they want it

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They'd be paying tax to educate all children, including their own.

We all pay tax which pays for the education of children, regardless of whether we have children, and regardless of whether we want any children educated in any fashion at all.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's like paying tax to maintain the health service - you're entitled to pay for your own private treatment (or pay a homeopath if you fall for that sort of stuff) if you feel that's not good enough for you.

It's more like just paying tax. Whether it goes on a health service, or education, or homeopathy, or water fluoridation, or island havens for our illustrious leaders, we are taxed the same regardless; we don't get to choose how our taxes are directed. What we do with whatever is left after we pay our taxes is the only bit that's up to us.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

we don't get to choose how our taxes are directed.

But neither should we expect to be excluded or "de-prioritised" from access to any such public services on the basis of our religion, or lack of it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

But neither should we expect to be excluded or "de-prioritised" from access to any such public services on the basis of our religion, or lack of it.

Why not, particularly if the service is provided on a religious basis, like a denominational school?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Why not

Are you really that far gone? So sad.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Are you really that far gone? So sad.

That's a bit on the ad hominem side, but if it's all you've got....

Hotblack Desiato

Irish Times - New schools law 'will not change Catholic first policies'

Hotblack Desiato

There was a piece a few days back in the IT making the claim that just 1% of students opt out of religion classes in catholic schools.

Paddy Monahan has written a letter in response which is worth reproducing in full:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/opting-out-of-faith-formation-in-schools-1.2916792

Opting out of faith formation in schools

Sir, – I am at a loss as to the point the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, Denis Nulty, is trying to make when he states that, according to diocesan research, “a very small group” of parents withdraw their children from daily faith formation lessons. (“Just 1% per cent of students ‘opt out’ of religion classes in Catholic schools”, December 19th). He cannot truly believe that such a figure indicates widespread satisfaction with the current system.

Around 90 per cent of taxpayer-funded primary schools in Ireland are under the patronage of the Catholic Church. All of these schools are entitled by law to apply the “baptism barrier” in enrolment and select children on the basis of their religion. This ensures baptisms of convenience and conformity by coercion but doesn’t entirely explain the apparently low opt-out rate.

The bishop’s figures are even more baffling when one considers that, according to the CSO, Catholic marriages in the State fell from 90.7 per cent in 1995 to 56.7 per cent in 2015, while non-religious marriages rose from 5.7 per cent to 33.7 per cent in the same period. (Interestingly though, a 2015 Ipsos poll showed 95 per cent of respondents under 35 had baptised their children – explicable, at least in part, by the fact that the State confers a major educational advantage on such children).

There is an explicit constitutional right “to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction”. Nonetheless, the State does absolutely nothing to uphold this right, despite the fact that half an hour a day is spent on faith formation in Catholic schools. Schools are entirely unregulated as to how they accommodate children not of the patron’s religion.

Typically, these children sit separately in the classroom during faith formation, segregated from the rest of the class, doing non-curriculum busywork, while their friends sing songs, and so on.

This is the fate children who “opt out” will face every day of their primary school lives. The situation is infinitely worse during communion and confirmation years.

Faced with institutionalised exclusion during a child’s crucial formative years, faced with the heartbreaking option of marking a four-year-old as “other” within their peer group, is it any wonder that forlorn parents swallow the bitter pill the State proffers and conform.

Of course, the law doesn’t require the Catholic schools to behave in this way – it merely allows them. However, it would appear that waiting for voluntary inclusiveness from Catholic schools is a waste of time. The Government must change the law now to ensure equal school access for all children, regardless of religion, and the teaching of faith formation at the end of the school day – the latter to facilitate parents of all faiths and none in deciding if they wish their children to attend such lessons.

Let’s see the figures for parents opting in to faith formation when the State finally does its duty and upholds the rights of all children in our schools. – Yours, etc,

PADDY MONAHAN,
Raheny,
Dublin 5.

Absolam

That reads like a serious amount of hoop jumping (combined with no small amount of pejorative rhetoric) to arrive at what is less a conclusion than a restatement of belief.

A far simpler explanation is that many parents probably just go along with what seems usual and harmless, be it baptism or faith formation in schools, and give practically no thought at all to the trenchant warriors struggling for freedom from oppression on their behalf.

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

That reads like a serious amount of hoop jumping (combined with no small amount of pejorative rhetoric) to arrive at what is less a conclusion than a restatement of belief.

A far simpler explanation is that many parents probably just go along with what seems usual and harmless, be it baptism or faith formation in schools, and give practically no thought at all to the trenchant warriors struggling for freedom from oppression on their behalf.

I disagree with your opinion.
There is even less reason to accept your spurious reasoning than the letter writers arguments.
I can personally attest to the letter writers thoughts being the thinking of at least one parent of a child nearing school age.

Do you just go along with faith formation in schools for your child because it's harmless nonsense or what is your opinion based on?

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I disagree with your opinion.
There is even less reason to accept your spurious reasoning than the letter writers arguments. I can personally attest to the letter writers thoughts being the thinking of at least one parent of a child nearing school age. Do you just go along with faith formation in schools for your child because it's harmless nonsense or what is your opinion based on?

Well, it's about equally spurious to be fair... I'm not trying to give the impression that there are statistics which are supposed to look like they could support my leap of faith even if they actually don't, unlike the author, and I'd certainly agree with you that there must be at least one parent agreeing with the piece.
Nevertheless the facts are that many parents baptise their children, many parents prefer denominational patrons when engaged in the patronage process (as we've seen on this thread) and the vast majority of parents don't opt their children out of religious education. Yet most parents don't attend Mass, and less and less get married in Churches. So it seems to me, spurious as you like, that whilst many people aren't bothered to engage with religion, they also are preferring a religious influence in their children's lives, so they don't see it as a problem.

Hotblack Desiato

More letters in today's IT:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/faith-formation-and-religion-in-the-curriculum-1.2919453

Faith formation and religion in the curriculum

Sir, – The proposal, currently being considered by policymakers, to remove religion from the core curriculum of primary schools represents a progressive step for Irish education and an acknowledgment of the value of fact-based learning (“Religion may be off primary school core curriculum”, December 28th).

There is an inherent contradiction in an approach to teaching that equates any religious framework, or any set of non-religious unsubstantiated beliefs, with school subjects that are based upon centuries of scientific inquiry.

Such inquiry has been guided by the principles of making claims based upon empirical evidence, the rigorous interrogation of such claims, and the development of knowledge, based upon the discovery of new confirmable data. Religious education, as it is currently taught in most Irish primary schools, represents the final bulwark against this approach.

Undoubtedly, religious orders have played a pivotal role in educating Ireland’s children. However, the price of that education should never have been the perpetuation of a moral framework that is too often structured around tradition and ancient prejudices instead of human wellbeing.

As President Michael D Higgins recently suggested, equipping children with the tools of philosophical inquiry would empower them to act as responsible agents in an increasingly complex world where morality and truth have become highly contested.
Deprioritising religion on the Irish school curriculum would represent another important element of such a strategy. – Yours, etc,

JOHN HOGAN,
Ballyneety,
Co Limerick.


Sir, – The statistics provided by Paddy Monahan in his letter on faith formation in national schools are most revealing (December 27th).

When they are considered in conjunction with recently published figures for regular church attendance, they clearly indicate a very widespread element of cognitive dissonance among the parents of Irish school-going children.

However, his plea that “Government must change the law now to ensure equal school access for all children” is at best fanciful. Government will do nothing as it suffers from the same affliction as the general public. Nothing will change until parents demand that schools provide an education system that is in accord with what they really believe and practise in their daily lives. – Yours, etc,

LOUIS O’FLAHERTY,
Santry,
Dublin 9.


A chara, – Paddy Monahan claims that the fact that the overwhelming majority of parents are effectively opting in when it comes to their children attending faith formation classes in denominational schools should not be taken to indicate a “widespread satisfaction” with the system (“Just 1 per cent of students ‘opt out’ of religion classes in Catholic schools, says bishop”, News, December 19th).

However, I don’t see why this is such an unreasonable conclusion to draw. Mr Monahan does, of course, put forward various theories as to why we should not see the figures as meaning that people are happy; but these seem to be largely based on assertion, anecdote, and a generous amount of wishful thinking.

Until he has something more substantial to offer, I believe we have to accept that the facts to hand, based as they are on verifiable research, speak for themselves. – Is mise,

Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
Castlecomer,
Co Kilkenny.


Sir, – The myth that primary schools spend up to 2½ hours on “faith formation” each week is recycled over and over again in the media. This really is the canard that never stops quacking.

Because of the “integrated curriculum”, “faith formation” can and often does permeate the entire school day in primary schools, in the guise of what some disingenuously refer to as “religious education”.

This renders an opt-out from faith formation virtually impossible.

“Religious education” is, in the context of the Irish primary school system, an oxymoron. When a belief is taught as if it were true, this is the very definition of indoctrination. Genuine education invites inquiry, challenge, scrutiny and debate. Can this honestly be said of “faith formation”?

Faith formation is not education, but indoctrination. It aims to proselytise. How can this be squared with the goal of education? By that rationale, teaching creationism (as if it were true) is education, teaching climate change denial (as if it were true) is education, teaching communism (as if it were true) is education.

The integrated curriculum is one of the locks that together constitute the triple lock that religious institutions have over our primary school system, the other two being the virtual monopoly by religious institutions of the primary school system and the baptism barrier. A total of 96 per cent of primary schools are under the patronage of religious institutions, so there is no alternative to the integrated curriculum model across much of the country.

It has been well-documented that the lack of objectivity and neutrality in the integrated curriculum has resulted in the involuntary indoctrination of children in Irish publicly funded schools. Children and parents face a State-funded system where religiously dominated, but publicly funded schools, can discriminate against them in their admission policies on religious grounds and then indoctrinate children against their parents’ wishes when they are admitted. This set-up has been repeatedly criticised by one human rights organisation after the next.

Some “republic”.– Yours, etc,

ROB SADLIER,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.

Absolam

It's so very hard to take someone who blithely throws out the term cognitive dissonance seriously. Though that's probably just my cognitive dissonance....

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

It's so very hard to take someone who blithely throws out the term cognitive dissonance seriously. Though that's probably just my cognitive dissonance....

To be honest, I don't think you take anyone with a contrary view seriously.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Absolam wrote: »

It's so very hard to take someone who blithely throws out the term cognitive dissonance seriously. Though that's probably just my cognitive dissonance....

To be honest, I don't think you take anyone with a contrary view seriously.

Oh, I take very few views seriously, never mind how contrary they are. But there are those who seem to go out of their way to make it difficult to do so even if one feels one ought to.

Hotblack Desiato

Another one in Friday's IT:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/faith-formation-and-religion-in-the-curriculum-1.2920347

Sir, – Any assertion that the very low numbers of people opting out of faith formation in Irish primary schools is evidence of contentment in the present system is incorrect, if not unfounded.

I myself am likely included in that 99 per cent of students who failed to opt out of religious education in primary school, although I would be immensely displeased if that was registered as evidence of my approval of the present system of patronage. I found myself participating in religious classes in school despite having no particularly religious influence from my family simply because it was more convenient to do so. The system rewards the faithful with convenience, and so to avoid letters to teachers, 2½ hours per week of twiddling thumbs and being excluded from the activities that dominate class time in the periods leading up to the sacraments, my parents did not opt out on my behalf.

Failing to opt out is quite simply not “effectively opting in”, in the sense that religious education is presented as the default option, requiring little by way of pious zeal to attract students and parents. It is through no acceptance of the prospect of ubiquitous religious patronage of schools that I failed to conscientiously object to religious instruction. In fact, having become a confirmed Catholic simply because it was presented to me, while a young child, as a matter if course, I find myself immensely discontented with the religious character of the primary school curriculum.

When a system attaches incentives to adherence to a particular religion, individuals will, contentedly or otherwise, play along with that religion, whether they are committed to such a belief system or not. – Yours, etc,

CHRISTOPHER
McMAHON,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.

Absolam

There you go... just as I said.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

More letters in today's IT:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/faith-formation-and-religion-in-the-curriculum-1.2919453

There's a great line in one of those letters...

..equipping children with the tools of philosophical inquiry would empower them to act as responsible agents in an increasingly complex world where morality and truth have become highly contested..

which the author modestly attributes to Michael D Higgins. Here's what the President said.
But regardless of who says it, I think its a great point, and one that will be very topical for 2017. We'll be hearing a lot more of terms such as "post-truth" "fake news" "populism" and "democracy".
Orwellian type indoctrination is something which leaves whole societies vulnerable to being duped. The arts of philosophical enquiry and scientific method are the antidote, and we would do well to introduce the vaccination program ASAP.

Absolam

Certainly sounds better than a dogmatic suppression of alternative philosophies in state enforced secular schools designed to infringe parents rights

Though I should be quick to point out that the President of course was encouraging the teaching of philosophy, rather than advocating the curtailment of religious freedom; as he also said, philosophy is urgently needed to enable citizens “to discriminate between truthful language and illusory rhetoric”. Personally I think "Orwellian indoctrination" is just the sort of illusory rhetoric we should be teaching our children to beware of...

learn_more

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I take very few views seriously, never mind how contrary they are. But there are those who seem to go out of their way to make it difficult to do so even if one feels one ought to.

Do you take your own views seriously ?

Or is winning points more your 'thing' whether you actually believe in them or not.

Your not a barrister by profession are you?