School patronage

looksee

JC, secular does not mean anti-theist or atheist. This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

The question was to get an answer to what you would do if a school was teaching something you found objectionable to your child. I'm pleased to hear the school is a pleasant experience for your young one. But I am still curious as to what your answer would be to the question.

If a school was teaching one thing, even several things that I found objectionable I would still send my child to it ... it would be only where the entire atmosphere in the school was irreligious / anti-religious (something like the A & A forum) and with no counterbalancing opinions provided or allowed, that I would 'draw the line'.

Delirium wrote: »

And yet the state currently is engaging in religious formation due to state employees spending time on faith formation during the school day. Are you saying this should no longer be allowed? That's secular talk, JC!

The state isn't currently engaging in faith formation ... its merely paying the salaries of people who are doing this independently of the state ... a very different thing altogether.

Delirium wrote: »

So you believe that the anti-theist population of Ireland has greater sway than neutrals and religious people over the school syllabus? Care to explain?

Other countries with more 'developed' secular educational systems ban all references to God and religion on school premises ... and I see no reason why Ireland would be an exception to this trend, should a secular system of education be established in every Irish school.

J C

looksee wrote: »

JC, secular does not mean anti-theist or atheist. This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact.

In theory that may be correct ... but in practice, secular school systems, for example, in France and America are anti-theist to the point of banning even the mention of God within their schools.
I do have sympathy and understanding for the feelings of minorities (including irreligious minorities) faced with what may appear a monolith of religious control in schools ... but taking over church-run schools to replace them with an irreligious monolith is not the way to go IMO.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

In theory that may be correct ... but in practice, secular school systems, for example, in France and America are anti-theist to the point of banning even the mention of God within their schools.
I do have sympathy and understanding for the feelings of minorities (including irreligious minorities) faced with what may appear a monolith of religious control in schools ... but taking over church-run schools to replace them with an irreligious monolith is not the way to go IMO.

OK, I'll take the bait. Where's your proof?

smacl

J C wrote: »

Christian Parents shouldn't have worry that their children will be indoctinated into practical Atheism and irreligion within the schools they choose to send their children to !!!

... and you mean the 90% of Irish taxpayers that are Christian whose tax Euros you want to use to fund and promote irreligion to their children and grandchildren within every school.

Yet when I conducted a straw poll on the Christianity forum a couple of years ago asking Christians were they against secularism, 73.3% said they were not. Note that the post specifically referenced religious involvement in schools, and furthermore asked any A&A regulars not to vote (which they didn't as can be seen by the results). So it would seem that the vast majority of Christians in this community at least are not currently happy with how their taxes are spent with respect to education and would prefer a more secular model. This is reflected on a larger scale by the fact that Educate Together schools are considerably more oversubscribed than their RCC counterparts.

I would suggest that your attitudes towards religion and education are very far from typical of the nominal Irish Christian, and would suggest you need some strong evidence to indicate that the position you hold is one common to most Irish people. Until then, there is no reason to assume that majority of Irish people stand behind your arguments, however hard you try to place them there.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

If a school was teaching one thing, even several things that I found objectionable I would still send my child to it ... it would be only where the entire atmosphere in the school was irreligious / anti-religious (something like the A & A forum) and with no counterbalancing opinions provided or allowed, that I would 'draw the line'.

You're a lot more tolerant than I am. I wouldn't send my kid to a school that I perceived to be giving them a bad education by teaching them religious beliefs as fact, e.g. creationism or that they will burn in Hell for not being Christian.

The state isn't currently engaging in faith formation ... its merely paying the salaries of people who are doing this independently of the state ... a very different thing altogether.

You're wrong. State employees are involved in faith formation in public schools, ergo the state is involved. For some reason you seem to be okay with this even though you recently stated the opposite.

Other countries with more 'developed' secular educational systems ban all references to God and religion on school premises ... and I see no reason why Ireland would be an exception to this trend, should a secular system of education be established in every Irish school.

Because there's no public appetite for banning religion from schools. Or are you suggesting that the majority of the public want this?

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

His analogy may not be pretty ... but neither are many of the anti-religious and scoffing postings on this forum

If you don't like the posts in this forum you do have the option of not reading them. I don't go into the christianity forum complaining about the nature of posts there, yet you constantly do this here.

... and if they are in any way reflective of Irish Secularism then

It is your assertion, it is up to you to provide evidence for it.

J C wrote: »

.. the state should encourage the provision of as broad a range of school types as student numbers permit ... and parents can then choose which of these schools to send their children to.

Leading to an ever more balkanised, segregated, inefficient, costly and socially divisive education system, with all the social harms this brings - all to avoid upsetting a tiny number of religious zealots.

In reality, non-christian schools are a rounding error in this country and most parents have no choice at all.

looksee

J C wrote: »

Other countries with more 'developed' secular educational systems ban all references to God and religion on school premises ... and I see no reason why Ireland would be an exception to this trend, should a secular system of education be established in every Irish school.

You have been asked on several occasions to provide some evidence of what you are claiming JC. Can you give some examples of where 'reference to god and religion on school premises' are banned? Just because religion is not taught it does not follow that atheism is imposed.

J C

looksee wrote: »

You have been asked on several occasions to provide some evidence of what you are claiming JC. Can you give some examples of where 'reference to god and religion on school premises' are banned? Just because religion is not taught it does not follow that atheism is imposed.

The following is the current state of law in American public schools:-

Quote:-
"Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a ruling that established the Lemon test for religious activities within schools. The Lemon test states that, in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause, any practice sponsored within state-run schools (or other public state-sponsored activities) must adhere to the following three criteria:

1 Have a secular purpose;
2 Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3 Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion."

These tests effectively prohibit the expression of religion within public schools ... unless one wishes to be subjected to the potential for all kind of vexacious actions by both the school, students and their parents.
Why would the vast majority of the population in Ireland (who are Christian) want such a legal minefield created within schools currently run by their churches and where religious practices are currently constitutionally protected?

looksee

J C wrote: »

The following is the current state of law in American public schools:-

Quote:-
"Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a ruling that established the Lemon test for religious activities within schools. The Lemon test states that, in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause, any practice sponsored within state-run schools (or other public state-sponsored activities) must adhere to the following three criteria:

1 Have a secular purpose;
2 Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3 Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion."

These tests effectively prohibit the expression of religion within public schools ... unless one wishes to be subjected to the potential for all kind of vexacious actions by both the school, students and their parents.
Why would the vast majority of the population in Ireland (who are Christian) want such a legal minefield created within schools currently run by their churches and where religious practices are currently constitutionally protected?

How do those points, and especially the bolded part, result in the promotion of atheism - or as you insist on calling it, anti-theism?

Your statement that the 'vast majority' of the population is Christian is looking increasingly inaccurate. They might be culturally Christian, this is a long way from being practising Christians, and even further from being RC, which is the particular brand of Christianity that exists most schools.

J C

looksee wrote: »

How do those points, and especially the bolded part, result in the promotion of atheism - or as you insist on calling it, anti-theism?
(1 Have a secular purpose;
2 Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
3 Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.)

Its the first and third points (which equally form part of the test) that have the most inhibitory effects and present the most opportunity for litigation against Christians who express their faith in school.

In any event, my question as to why Christians would want such a legal minefield created within schools currently run by their churches and where religious practices are currently constitutionally protected, remains unanswered.

... and I don't insist on calling atheism anti-theism ... I accept that there are atheists who simply don't believe that God exists and they leave it at that ... but there are also many Atheists who are hostile to religion and to the concept of God ... and these Atheists can be described as anti-theists.

looksee wrote: »

Your statement that the 'vast majority' of the population is Christian is looking increasingly inaccurate. They might be culturally Christian, this is a long way from being practising Christians, and even further from being RC, which is the particular brand of Christianity that exists most schools.

Whether they are cultural or actual Christians is somewhat moot ... the fact remains that about 84% of the Irish population proclaim themselves to be Christian ... and that is not a trivial number.
I also accept that 10% of the population declaring themselves to have no religious affiliation is also a significant development that needs to be accommodated in an appropriate and proportionate manner.

Hotblack Desiato

Some interesting articles on religion and education on the RTE News site recently.

http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2017/0327/862810-eight-schools-suspend-religious-segregation-of-children/

Eight primary schools have suspended part of a controversial religious education programme that segregates children according to their religious background at a key time in the Catholic calendar.

The schools, which are State-run Community National Schools, took the step this year after consultation with parents, writes Education Correspondent Emma O Kelly.

A ninth CNS school suspended the programme entirely five years ago after objections from parents.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) has said it will begin a review of the programme from September.

The 'Goodness Me, Goodness You' religious education programme was drawn up after the Catholic Church warned the Department of Education that the provision of faith formation for Catholic pupils was a "minimum non-negotiable requirement" for its support for the new Community National School, multi-denominational model.

At which point the DoE should have told them to feck off and mind their own business :mad:

Two Community National Schools, Árd Ri in Navan, and Lucan CNS in Dublin continue to separate all children in the month running up to Easter. Neither school has responded to queries from RTÉ News about the programme.

Another Community National School, Scoil Choilm, suspended the 'Goodness Me, Goodness You' syllabus entirely five years ago after parents objected to the segregation of children and to the content of the religious education programme.

One former Scoil Choilm teacher, who wished to remain anonymous, told RTÉ News: "I didn’t feel comfortable teaching it and I was glad when it was suspended. We were trying to teach them (non-Catholic children) what their religion is. Their parents found it insulting and I don't blame them."

Scoil Choilm in Dublin 15 is in the process of introducing a newly developed version of the programme for senior pupils, which does not contain the four-week separation component.

http://www.rte.ie/news/education/2017/0407/866131-religious-policies-school/

Catholic secondary schools are telling parents that their children are obliged to attend religious education classes and Catholic masses despite the fact that the Constitution gives students an explicit right to not attend, should they or their parents so wish.

RTÉ News has looked at the websites of several Roman Catholic schools which state that students are "required" or "expected" to attend religion classes, or state that the subject is "compulsory".

Some websites also state that non-Christian students are "required" to attend mass, and one states that Muslim students specifically must "fully participate" in Christian liturgies.

The instructions appear to be in direct conflict with the Constitution which acknowledges "the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school".

When contacted by RTÉ News, many of the schools said that the policies in question would be reviewed, or were currently under review.

Jane Donnelly of Atheist Ireland has called on the Minister for Education to put statutory guidelines in place in line with the Constitution and human rights law.

The organisation has highlighted some of these and other school religious education policies on social media.

Ms Donnelly said it was ridiculous that "in this day and age" schools still had policies that obliged children to attend religion classes, when this went against their constitutional rights.

In a statement the Department of Education confirmed that parents had a constitutional right to have their children opt out of religion classes if they so wished.

It said the manner in which a school ensured that the right was upheld was a matter for individual schools.

It said forthcoming legislation would require schools to include details in their enrolment policies of arrangements for any students in this position.

http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2017/0406/865826-census-religion-blog/

The CSO data begs one further question; how many of the 84% who ticked the Roman Catholic box were baptised into that faith simply in order to secure a school place? Unfortunately the Census data won't provide any answer to that question.

(it's no longer 84%, but the point still stands)

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/education/2017/0407/866131-religious-policies-school/

Some websites also state that non-Christian students are "required" to attend mass, and one states that Muslim students specifically must "fully participate" in Christian liturgies.
The instructions appear to be in direct conflict with the Constitution which acknowledges "the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school".
When contacted by RTÉ News, many of the schools said that the policies in question would be reviewed, or were currently under review.

Its incredible that publicly funded schools have policies that are blatantly repugnant to the constitution. And when challenged, all they can say in response is that they might review the policies.
Dept. of Education should be cutting their funding. Heads should roll. Principals who oversee blatantly illegal policies should be forced to resign.
Its amazing this stuff is not taken more seriously. Unfortunately, parents are all too often afraid to rock the boat. I see the Dept. of Education as being the main culprit here, because unlike parents, they are in a position of power relative to the school board.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

.

http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2017/0327/862810-eight-schools-suspend-religious-segregation-of-children/

Good to see the policy in the new state-run CNS primary schools of segregating kids into 4 groups has failed.
The real purpose of this was of course to continue to facilitate RC religious indoctrination during school hours. The creation of the other 3 groups was merely a fig leaf to disguise this.

Unfortunately it seems the original 4-way segregation has now morphed into a binary segration; RC and non-RC. So no solution yet, but perhaps a half way pit stop to having faith formation/religious indoctrination outside of school hours.

One school principal told RTÉ News they had spoken to all parents and there was "no demand" for segregation.
However, Catholic pupils in the schools continue to be separated from classmates on a weekly basis in second and in sixth class to allow them to prepare for Communion and Confirmation during school time.

J C

recedite wrote: »

Its incredible that publicly funded schools have policies that are blatantly repugnant to the constitution. And when challenged, all they can say in response is that they might review the policies.
Dept. of Education should be cutting their funding. Heads should roll. Principals who oversee blatantly illegal policies should be forced to resign.

Where are they repugnant to the constitution?

Here is the relevant Article 42 on Eduction:-

ARTICLE 42

1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

What it basically says is that parents have the right to send their children to schools of their own choosing.
There is an inherent provision for schools with different ethos ... but a 'one size fits all' approach by the state or the taking over of private initiative schools is not sanctioned in the Constitution.
Equally, when a parent chooses to send their children to a particular school, there is no constitutional provision for opting out from activities within the school ... although such opt outs could possibly be voluntarily agreed, if they can be practically implemented.

The actual provision for secular schooling is in subsection 4, which states that "when the public good requires it, (the state shall) provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation."

Delirium

ARTICLE 42

1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.ARTICLE 42

1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Nowhere in that does it say that the state is required to provide religious ethos public schools.

It says parents "shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State." This basically means they don't have to avail (also cannot be compelled to use) of public schools.

A secular public school system is most certainly possible within the parameters of the Article you quoted. Even just your claim of "one size fits all" model isn't allowed, that's easily disproved given that almost the entire primary school is run by RCC patrons.

Your suggestion that the following, "The actual provision for secular schooling is in subsection 4, which states that "when the public good requires it, (the state shall) provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation." is in reference to secular schools actually makes more sense when applied to the religious in that they are the ones that need extras from the state. E.g prayer rooms, chapels.

So nice try, but the Article doesn't preclude a secular public school system happening in Ireland.

recedite

J C wrote: »

Where are they repugnant to the constitution?

Its actually quoted in my post, from the original IT article;

the Constitution which acknowledges "the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school".

Very plain, and very clear.

TheChizler

Anyone watching Would You Believe tonight? Exploring divestment of schools, non-Catholic schools, and the effect of Catholic education on non-Catholics.

recedite

Saw most of that, yes. They were basically pushing the line that RCC should divest a few schools to cater for "the new Irish".
This corresponds roughly with the RCC hierarchy's view; because then the remaining RC schools could become more religious, and less diluted by the demands of a rising proportion of pupils/parents who do not accept the "One True Religion" faith formation permeating the school day.

But the RCC hierarchy have had a problem convincing any individual local school boards to divest completely from the mother church.They all want some other school to divest. Its a kind of nimbyism.

IMO this kind of thinking will result in the further balkanisation of the "national" school system. The state continues to sanction religious discrimination. Society and communities become less cohesive. Parents will travel further to find the right kind of school. An effective school bus system will become impossible due to all the different routes criss crossing each other.

All in all, it seems like it might be an improvement, but long term it's not.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

All in all, it seems like it might be an improvement, but long term it's not.

I agree in principle but realistically I think change will happen through attrition at the behest of parents rather than our politicians managing to take their respective fingers out and doing something positive. As a rule, our political system is reluctantly reactive, favouring and defending the status quo, so the possibility of a blanket change to a secular school system would seem remote in the extreme until such a time as it is already the case through gradual change.

beauf

recedite wrote: »

...IMO this kind of thinking will result in the further balkanisation of the "national" school system. The state continues to sanction religious discrimination. Society and communities become less cohesive. Parents will travel further to find the right kind of school. An effective school bus system will become impossible due to all the different routes criss crossing each other....

You've already got this. The admissions policies are increasingly being changed, to encourage diversity. So they may have quotas for different groups and also may not have a residency requirement, as an area around the school may not be diverse. So the locals don't get places and people outside the area get places. This could be a expensive private school in a poor area, it doesn't have to be about religion, though it often is. The Educate together is a first come first served. So if you are local you aren't guaranteed a place. All these means that siblings might not get a place in the same school and more kids will go to a school that's not near where they live. It gets increasingly like London or similar then. Its probably inevitable. The days of a local school being local, in the cities anyway,are probably numbered.

I can see the catchment and admissions being more about money than anything in the future.

Bass Reeves

recedite wrote: »

The state continues to sanction religious discrimination.

I have to disagree with you if you consider what we have in Ireland discriminatory. Maybe you should look at middle eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakastan. I think those that think we have discrimation in Ireland do not know the meaning of the word.

There is huge tolerance in the Irish Education system. However we are staring to have a vocal minority that wish to bring intolerance into the school system. The vast majority is quitw happy with the way the Education is changing and is much more inclusive than some give it credit for. Rather this minority want the majority discriminated against so that they can live in a cocoon.

looksee

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I have to disagree with you if you consider what we have in Ireland discriminatory. Maybe you should look at middle eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakastan. I think those that think we have discrimation in Ireland do not know the meaning of the word.

There is huge tolerance in the Irish Education system. However we are staring to have a vocal minority that wish to bring intolerance into the school system. The vast majority is quitw happy with the way the Education is changing and is much more inclusive than some give it credit for. Rather this minority want the majority discriminated against so that they can live in a cocoon.

Its hard to know where to start with those arguments.

So can we only judge a social issue based on (perceived) comparable situations. Discrimination does not count if you can show somewhere worse?

Yes the Irish education system is very tolerant (why should it need to be tolerant?) if you are a Catholic. If you are not then the tolerance is not so noticeable.

The vast majority is quitw happy with the way the Education is changing and is much more inclusive than some give it credit for.

If it is so tolerant why is there need for any change at all? What changes are the 'vast majority' happy about? Why should there be degrees of 'inclusiveness', at what point do you say its ok to exclude some children?

Delirium

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I have to disagree with you if you consider what we have in Ireland discriminatory. Maybe you should look at middle eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakastan. I think those that think we have discrimation in Ireland do not know the meaning of the word.

You do realise discrimination is scalar and not binary, right? Just because the countries you gave as an example have worse examples of discrimination, doesn't negate discrimination here.

There is huge tolerance in the Irish Education system. However we are staring to have a vocal minority that wish to bring intolerance into the school system. The vast majority is quitw happy with the way the Education is changing and is much more inclusive than some give it credit for. Rather this minority want the majority discriminated against so that they can live in a cocoon.

How is removing religious discrimination discriminating against Roman Catholics?

yoganinja

I think when you come from a position of privilege, equality feels like discrimination

recedite

A paedophile priest formerly based in Rathnew near Wicklow town was convicted yesterday of more child abuse charges.

This "pillar of society" was on the Board of management of the local school.
Can you imagine what it must have been like for parents (who may even have heard vague rumours about his proclivities) having to go to him for a place in their local state funded school? A scumbag who had the power to deny people access to a state funded education, even though people were already paying for it through their taxes. :mad:

Meanwhile the Dail debates the Equal Participation in Schools Bill, tabled by the Solidarity party, ahead of a vote later in the week.

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

I think when you come from a position of privilege, equality feels like discrimination

Or even when you come from a position of disadvantage, hence the fact that we can observe many previously disadvantaged groups (women, negroes etc) advocating for more favourable terms than those who had been previously privileged in order to provide some sense of redress, or 'safe space', but considering their own new found advantange not to be privilege, but some sort of enhanced equality.

That's a view that can inform the current debate about patronage of Irish schools; no one is likely to disagree that non religious groups should be treated equally as potential patrons for new schools, though the idea that some patrons should hand over their patronage to other bodies simply in order to provide redress to those who are disadvantaged probably wouldn't have so much support.

Delirium

recedite wrote: »

Meanwhile the Dail debates the Equal Participation in Schools Bill, tabled by the Solidarity party, ahead of a vote later in the week.

heard this mentioned on the news yesterday. According to the new report the government opposes the bill

Hotblack Desiato

DoE is in thrall to the Church of Ireland as much as the RCC.

yoganinja

what " more favourable" terms do you think people advocating secular education are looking for?