School patronage

recedite

Delirium wrote: »

According to the news report the government opposes the bill

Yes, just because of who is proposing it. A similar fate befell the proposal to get rid of Dail prayer time.

I wonder do the TD's even bother to read up on these things before they vote on them, or do they just saunter in from the Dail bar asking one of their fellow party members in the corridor "is this one of our bills, or one of theirs".

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

It was always seen as very important to throw state money to at least one other religion, otherwise by funding RC schools they could be accused of "endowing" RCC as the state religion, which would be unconstitutional.

yoganinja

recedite wrote: »

It was always seen as very important to throw state money to at least one other religion, otherwise by funding RC schools they could be accused of "endowing" RCC as the state religion, which would be unconstitutional.

yup and the end point of this is a scatter gun approach to supporting more and more diverse patrons and a fractured and fractioned system, outsourcing responsibility whilst paying all the bills - a wonderfully Irish solution to an Irish problem

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/minorities-and-the-baptism-barrier-1.3089700

Minorities and the 'baptism barrier'

Sir, - The Dáil debate on the Equal Participation in Schools Bill - defeated on Thursday by 90 votes to 43 - focused largely on minority protection.

The two biggest parties' defence of the "baptism barrier" has gradually shifted from a defence of all denominational schools' ethos (90 per cent of which are Catholic) to a focus almost exclusively on protecting minority religions.

This surely reflects a realisation that an argument placing the interests of the majority religion's institutions above the rights to freedom of religion and equality of individuals could not withstand scrutiny.

But it must come as a terrible shock for people of minority faiths that they are now being used as the primary excuse for maintaining a law that discriminates against them.

It is true that section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 was inserted to provide an exemption from the prohibition of discrimination in the provision of education in order to protect minority schools' ethos.

Of course, that's not how the section has worked. Because 90 per cent of schools in Ireland are under the patronage of the Catholic Church, the rule is most frequently invoked by schools to refuse admission to religious minorities and non-religious families.

The result is that Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants, the non-religious and those belonging to all the other minority belief systems in Ireland can be excluded from almost every school in the country based on their religious beliefs. The fact that the only Jewish primary school in Ireland - Stratford National School in South Dublin - can enrol Jewish children ahead of others is of remarkably little use to a Jewish family living in Ashbourne and unable to attend the local school.

The vast majority of minority religion families do not live near to school that prioritises them, so they need equal access to the local school regardless of its patron.

The reality is that those belonging to minority religions suffer most from the effects of the "baptism barrier".

This is why the large number of minority believers who are members of Education Equality are calling for equal access to all State schools so that they can attend their local schools without discrimination.

While Minister for Education Richard Bruton in opposing the Bill spoke of the concerns of some religious organisations that removing section 7(3)(c) could harm their ethos, this amounts to protecting the concerns of institutions rather than those of people.

It is clear that individuals' right to freedom of religion does not require that they have access to a school that provides exclusively for adherents of their religious beliefs.

It is not possible for the State to build and fund a denominational school exclusively for every religious denomination in Ireland, within a reasonable distance from the home of every follower of every belief system.

This is why children must be educated together in local schools that cater for children of all beliefs living in that area. The wishes of institutions to control the schools they run cannot outweigh the constitutional rights of individuals to freedom of religion and equality.

The true protection of religious minorities therefore requires the repeal of the "baptism barrier" rather than its retention. - Yours, etc,

APRIL DUFF,
Legal Officer,
Education Equality,
Portobello Dock,
Portobello Harbour,
Dublin 8.

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

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

I think those looking to forcibly divest patrons of their schools in order to provide them to patrons they prefer are looking for the State to favour their point of view by handing the fruits of others labours to them. I don't think those looking to establish secular schools by their own efforts are looking for anything other than equal terms.

recedite wrote: »

It was always seen as very important to throw state money to at least one other religion, otherwise by funding RC schools they could be accused of "endowing" RCC as the state religion, which would be unconstitutional.

I don't think that's even vaguely true. Some people have thought they could misrepresent the State funding denominational education as religious endowment; it's never been true even in the very loosest of senses which is why the Courts have never endorsed the notion. But the State has never been allowed to discriminate on religious grounds, so the CoI and every other religious group that chooses to involve itself in education has equal standing (at least in consideration of their religion) as any Catholic group. So not so much not wanting to be seen as endowing one religion as simply being required not to discriminate between them....

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

I think those looking to forcibly divest patrons of their schools in order to provide them to patrons they prefer are looking for the State to favour their point of view by handing the fruits of others labours to them. I don't think those looking to establish secular schools by their own efforts are looking for anything other than equal terms.

hmmm if schools weren't funded and built from the tax purse and teachers weren't paid by the state you might have a claim for at least some token payment for historical inputs (but quite often even these costs came from the local community), I'd say the solution will involve some type of payment to cover this legacy

But to claim the fruits of "others labour" should all be considered as deriving from the church is pure hookum - schools were built on some church lands, some lands that were local lands that "became" church lands, were llands that were used for the original secular national schools etc. Local contributions from the local people contributed to their being built in very many cases. To claim all denominational schools as exclusively the fruit of some mythical denominational benefactor is just not true

Schools should be a part of the local community, there to serve the local community - not just a section of it by maintaining a position of privilege for the chosen

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

hmmm if schools weren't funded and built from the tax purse and teachers weren't paid by the state you might have a claim for at least some token payment for historical inputs (but quite often even these costs came from the local community), I'd say the solution will involve some type of payment to cover this legacy

Sure; I'd say the patronage of any schools entirely funded by the State should go to whoever will best serve the wishes of the parents using it. That doesn't really address what I said though, and there's no reason to think the State should consider making 'some type of payment' in order to help provide that favourable treatment either, if anything it makes the notion even worse.

yoganinja wrote: »

But to claim the fruits of "others labour" should all be considered as deriving from the church is pure hookum - schools were built on some church lands, some lands that were local lands that "became" church lands, were llands that were used for the original secular national schools etc. Local contributions from the local people contributed to their being built in very many cases. To claim all denominational schools as exclusively the fruit of some mythical denominational benefactor is just not true

I don't think any one is making any such hooky claims... but pretending that religious denominations have no investment in their schools and can reasonably be deprived of them to suit someone else's agenda is equally hookum.

yoganinja wrote: »

Schools should be a part of the local community, there to serve the local community - not just a section of it by maintaining a position of privilege for the chosen

Schools should be schools, and provide the education the parents who support them want.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; I'd say the patronage of any schools entirely funded by the State should go to whoever will best serve the wishes of the parents using it. That doesn't really address what I said though, and there's no reason to think the State should consider making 'some type of payment' in order to help provide that favourable treatment either, if anything it makes the notion even worse.
I don't think any one is making any such hooky claims... but pretending that religious denominations have no investment in their schools and can reasonably be deprived of them to suit someone else's agenda is equally hookum.

Schools should be schools, and provide the education the parents who support them want.

Oh I'm sure religious denominations have an investment in schools both in terms of the financial benefit they can accrue from said properties and for access it allows to propagate their faith but bottom line is that there is a need for (at the very least) significant divestment and this means transfer of both property and control.....the church has been reasonably good at talking a good line on this but hasn't made any significant effort on either of these

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

Oh I'm sure religious denominations have an investment in schools both in terms of the financial benefit they can accrue from said properties and for access it allows to propagate their faith but bottom line is that there is a need for (at the very least) significant divestment and this means transfer of both property and control.....the church has been reasonably good at talking a good line on this but hasn't made any significant effort on either of these

Yep, I'd say the facility to instruct people in their faith is a return on their investment most religious organisations would expect alright, though I'd be more than dubious that they accrue any financial benefit; the evidence presented on the thread would indicate it actually costs them financially to provide schools.

The idea that there is a bottom line need for significant divestment is really a matter of opinion; certainly there appears to be a desire for a greater diversity of school patronage, though whether that could or should come about through divestment is a different thing. I would suggest that it is up to those who would be divesting themselves of their assets whose thoughts are actually relevant; if they feel there is an appetite for the service they provide and don't want to do so, there's no compelling reason they should. Certainly the fact that others would like to take their assets for their own purposes isn't a compelling reason for them; it's likely to only to appear to be a compelling reason to those who, like I said earlier, are looking for the State to favour their point of view by handing the fruits of others labours to them.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Yep, I'd say the facility to instruct people in their faith is a return on their investment most religious organisations would expect alright, though I'd be more than dubious that they accrue any financial benefit; the evidence presented on the thread would indicate it actually costs them financially to provide schools.

The idea that there is a bottom line need for significant divestment is really a matter of opinion; certainly there appears to be a desire for a greater diversity of school patronage, though whether that could or should come about through divestment is a different thing. I would suggest that it is up to those who would be divesting themselves of their assets whose thoughts are actually relevant; if they feel there is an appetite for the service they provide and don't want to do so, there's no compelling reason they should. Certainly the fact that others would like to take their assets for their own purposes isn't a compelling reason for them; it's likely to only to appear to be a compelling reason to those who, like I said earlier, are looking for the State to favour their point of view by handing the fruits of others labours to them.

the reticence of those divesting to touch this topic of real level of divestment necessary is stunning - with the notable honourable exception of Diarmuid Martin. I particularly loved David Quinn's contribution on the topic on twitter recently where he claims to have been advocating divestment for 23 years .......yeah right -other than convenient soundbites not a single mmeaningful effort has come from that quarter

I very much welcome the opportunity to (yet again) bring these tpics up in Croke Park on Monday morning at the (new improved)
Forum on the Role of Religion in School Admissions

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

the reticence of those divesting to touch this topic of real level of divestment necessary is stunning - with the notable honourable exception of Diarmuid Martin. I particularly loved David Quinn's contribution on the topic on twitter recently where he claims to have been advocating divestment for 23 years .......yeah right -other than convenient soundbites not a single mmeaningful effort has come from that quarter

Perhaps your belief that there are 'those divesting' is unfounded, and in fact many patrons don't believe in your notion that there's a real level of divestment necessary either? That would fit the observable facts; namely few religious education bodies engaging in substantive divestment discussions.

yoganinja wrote: »

I very much welcome the opportunity to (yet again) bring these tpics up in Croke Park on Monday morning at the (new improved)
Forum on the Role of Religion in School Admissions

When you've done that, perhaps you'll return to tell us how many schools you persuaded other bodies to hand over to you? I'm mindful that Archbishop Martin commented "everyone was willing to see schools given up but very few people were willing to give up their school.” I suspect there are very few patrons with viable schools who will want to hand them over to other patrons just because it suits someone else's agenda....

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps your belief that there are 'those divesting' is unfounded, and in fact many patrons don't believe in your notion that there's a real level of divestment necessary either? That would fit the observable facts; namely few religious education bodies engaging in substantive divestment discussions.

When you've done that, perhaps you'll return to tell us how many schools you persuaded other bodies to hand over to you? I'm mindful that Archbishop Martin commented "everyone was willing to see schools given up but very few people were willing to give up their school.” I suspect there are very few patrons with viable schools who will want to hand them over to other patrons just because it suits someone else's agenda....

Can I ask you a question, is your interest in this topic one of general interest or are you actually involved at any level with the education system?

recedite

yoganinja wrote: »

is your interest in this topic one of general interest or are you actually involved at any level with the education system?

The answer to this would not make the persons opinion any more (or any less) valid IMO.
On the one hand, somebody immersed in the system might be expected to know more about it. On the other hand, many of them have a very blinkered outlook, having spent their entire lives inside it.
From primary school to secondary school, to teacher training college, and back to school again. All within the one "ethos", within the broader system.

yoganinja

recedite wrote: »

The answer to this would not make the persons opinion any more (or any less) valid IMO.
On the one hand, somebody immersed in the system might be expected to know more about it. On the other hand, many of them have a very blinkered outlook, having spent their entire lives inside it.
From primary school to secondary school, to teacher training college, and back to school again. All within the one "ethos", within the broader system.

Agreed re validity of opinions but I was asking re in the context of discussing the nuances of the crazy patronage system we have - I've found elsewhere that it is a waste of time to dig into the depths of this with people who only have an interest in the topic as part of a broader interest.

looksee

Your perception does you credit yoganinja!

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

Can I ask you a question, is your interest in this topic one of general interest or are you actually involved at any level with the education system?

I certainly won't be involved with the talks you've said you'll be attending anyway
But otherwise, without feeling obliged to divulge personal information, let's assume I have an interest in the subject both on grounds of principle and personal involvement, like most people. As recedite points out, I don't think either is required to have an opinion on the subject; once we're discussing how the State treats, or should treat, it's constituents, we all have standing, because it's our State.

yoganinja wrote: »

Agreed re validity of opinions but I was asking re in the context of discussing the nuances of the crazy patronage system we have - I've found elsewhere that it is a waste of time to dig into the depths of this with people who only have an interest in the topic as part of a broader interest.

You might well say it's a waste of time to discuss the quite interesting rationales for a patronage style system that places education in the hands of the people rather than the State with anyone who is not actually directly involved in changing or maintaining the system... which would beg the question why discuss them at all on Boards.ie, where practically nobody at all can demonstrate such an involvement. My suspicion is that your gambit is more indicative of an inclination amongst some people to try and exclude opinions they dislike (or can't rebut) from discourse on the basis of perceived standing. The likes of Iona are frequently (and rightly) pilloried in A&A for similarish tactical suppression; I'd say anyone who would rather remove a point of view from the discussion than set their own beside it isn't actually interested in a discussion at all.

Of course, you might just mean that if I don't have kids in school, or work in schools, then my opinion is insufficiently informed to be meaningful. I can't see any sort of factual basis for such an assertion though.

yoganinja

Nope I meant none of the things you took from the post

I asked because there are not too many people are that interested in the topic that a discussion that reaches back to the Stanley letter and the minutiae of the 1988 education act and the 1960's rules for national schools will go anywhere - but if they float your boat - happy days - I look forward to hearing your opinion on them

If you want to take umbrage at me asking where your interest lies - that's fair enough too

recedite

yoganinja wrote: »

the Stanley letter and the minutiae of the 1988 education act and the 1960's rules for national schools will go anywhere - but if they float your boat - happy days - I look forward to hearing your opinion on them

Here you go. :pac:

yoganinja

recedite wrote: »

Here you go. :pac:

cheers - that's a handy primer

So Absolam given that you obviously have spent a lot of time looking at this topic, know the historical context do you not find these questions/statements a little trite?

"When you've done that, perhaps you'll return to tell us how many schools you persuaded other bodies to hand over to you?

I suspect there are very few patrons with viable schools who will want to hand them over to other patrons just because it suits someone else's agenda...."

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

Nope I meant none of the things you took from the post I asked because there are not too many people are that interested in the topic that a discussion that reaches back to the Stanley letter and the minutiae of the 1988 education act and the 1960's rules for national schools will go anywhere - but if they float your boat - happy days - I look forward to hearing your opinion on them If you want to take umbrage at me asking where your interest lies - that's fair enough too

I rather doubt that those who are that interested are solely those actually involved at some level with the education system. So I have to say I'm dubious that your assertion that you've found it is a waste of time to dig into the depths of this with people who only have an interest in the topic as part of a broader interest is true. Unless you mean that you were wasting your time trying to persuade knowledgeable people to your point of view?

As for trite; you've yet to find the answer to the question I put to you, so I think it's fresh enough for now. But maybe instead of talking about how you feel about what people say, we'd be more on topic to talk about what people say. For instance, you've re-introduced the Stanley Act to the discussion; what do you think that particular subject will bring to your attempts to persuade your Forum of the stunning reticence of anyone with schools to just hand them to someone else?

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

I rather doubt that those who are that interested are solely those actually involved at some level with the education system. So I have to say I'm dubious that your assertion that you've found it is a waste of time to dig into the depths of this with people who only have an interest in the topic as part of a broader interest is true. Unless you mean that you were wasting your time trying to persuade knowledgeable people to your point of view?

As for trite; you've yet to find the answer to the question I put to you, so I think it's fresh enough for now. But maybe instead of talking about how you feel about what people say, we'd be more on topic to talk about what people say. For instance, you've re-introduced the Stanley Act to the discussion; what do you think that particular subject will bring to your attempts to persuade your Forum of the stunning reticence of anyone with schools to just hand them to someone else?

so your question is "When you've done that, perhaps you'll return to tell us how many schools you persuaded other bodies to hand over to you? "

How do you think a) it is possible to answer this question and b) why this is a question needs asking - why on earth do you think I have any intention of persuading anyone too hand me a school?

The Stanley letter is relevant because it sets out the explicitly secular nature of the National School system

Absolam

Well, you could answer it by doing what you said; '(yet again) bring these tpics up in Croke Park on Monday morning at the (new improved) Forum on the Role of Religion in School Admissions', then come back afterwards and tell us if you found any of 'those divesting' present, and if they weren't, were any of 'those not divesting' sufficiently persuaded from their stunning reticence to touch this topic of real level of divestment necessary, as to cause them to offer up their schools to other patrons?

If you're planning to use your belief that the Stanley Letter sets out the explicitly secular nature of the National School system as part of your persuasion, I'd suggest you read it in it's entirety; otherwise you may find that once again you're wasting your time trying to persuade knowledgeable people to your point of view. If you don't have the time (and we're all busy these days!) perhaps focus on portions like this;

"For the success of the undertaking much must depend upon the character of the individuals who compose the Board, and upon the security thereby afforded to the country, that while the interests of religion are not overlooked, the most scrupulous care should be taken not to interfere with the peculiar tenets of any description of Christian pupils.

To attain the first object, it appears essential that the Board should be composed of men of high personal character, including individuals of exalted station in the Church; to attain the latter, that it should consist of persons professing different religious opinions. It is the intention of the Government that the Board should exercise a complete control over the various schools which may be erected under its auspices, or which, having been already established, may hereafter place themselves under its management, and submit to its regulations. Subject to these, applications for aid will be admissible from Christians of all denominations; but as one of the main objects must be to unite in one system children of different creeds, and as much must depend upon the co-operation of the resident clergy, the Board will probably look with peculiar favour upon applications proceeding either from-
1st The Protestant and Roman-catholic clergy of the Parish; or
2nd One of the clergymen, and a certain number of parishioners professing the opposite creed; or
3rd Parishioners of both denominations."


I think many could be inclined to the view that the Stanley Letter envisaged schools that were particularly Christian in nature....

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Well, you could answer it by doing what you said; '(yet again) bring these tpics up in Croke Park on Monday morning at the (new improved) Forum on the Role of Religion in School Admissions', then come back afterwards and tell us if you found any of 'those divesting' present, and if they weren't, were any of 'those not divesting' sufficiently persuaded from their stunning reticence to touch this topic of real level of divestment necessary, as to cause them to offer up their schools to other patrons?

If you're planning to use your belief that the Stanley Letter sets out the explicitly secular nature of the National School system as part of your persuasion, I'd suggest you read it in it's entirety; otherwise you may find that once again you're wasting your time trying to persuade knowledgeable people to your point of view. If you don't have the time (and we're all busy these days!) perhaps focus on portions like this;

"For the success of the undertaking much must depend upon the character of the individuals who compose the Board, and upon the security thereby afforded to the country, that while the interests of religion are not overlooked, the most scrupulous care should be taken not to interfere with the peculiar tenets of any description of Christian pupils.

To attain the first object, it appears essential that the Board should be composed of men of high personal character, including individuals of exalted station in the Church; to attain the latter, that it should consist of persons professing different religious opinions. It is the intention of the Government that the Board should exercise a complete control over the various schools which may be erected under its auspices, or which, having been already established, may hereafter place themselves under its management, and submit to its regulations. Subject to these, applications for aid will be admissible from Christians of all denominations; but as one of the main objects must be to unite in one system children of different creeds, and as much must depend upon the co-operation of the resident clergy, the Board will probably look with peculiar favour upon applications proceeding either from-
1st The Protestant and Roman-catholic clergy of the Parish; or
2nd One of the clergymen, and a certain number of parishioners professing the opposite creed; or
3rd Parishioners of both denominations."


I think many could be inclined to the view that the Stanley Letter envisaged schools that were particularly Christian in nature....

nice selective quoting of the letter - interesting that you leave out the entire concept of the secular (and secular only) education to be provided during the school day (on the 4 or 5 days provided for) and for the non secular component to be delivered before or after those designated school hours or on the other two days. The fact that people of different denominations were to manage school doesn't take away from the fact that the entire education to be provided during those school hours was to be "moral and literary education only". But cheers for trying to be helpful

Re the question - still perplexed as to how you think I can answer a question on what would happen based on you thinking that I am going to this meeting to persuade people to divest (I think you may have even suggested I wanted them to hand over schools to me)

The meeting on Monday is about the role of religion on admissions, divestment is only a tiny part of the issue - even if there was a significant increase in divestment the retaining of 7(3)c means that equal access to all in publicly funded schools is a much wider issue that needs to be resolved

I don't have the gift of foresight but I'm absolutely certain the Stanley letter isn't going to be something I bring up on Monday - my focus will be on constitutional issues

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

nice selective quoting of the letter - interesting that you leave out the entire concept of the secular (and secular only) education to be provided during the school day (on the 4 or 5 days provided for) and for the non secular component to be delivered before or after those designated school hours or on the other two days. The fact that people of different denominations were to manage school doesn't take away from the fact that the entire education to be provided during those school hours was to be "moral and literary education only". But cheers for trying to be helpful

Well, I think we're well past the idea that only secular education was to be provided in schools, but feel free to selectively quote anything you imagine supports such an argument You've acknowledged that the Stanley letter set out that non secular education was to be provided on specific days (just as secular education was to be), which in itself knocks your argument that the Stanley Letter sets out the explicitly secular nature of the National School system on it's head. You've disproved your own assertion, even without the fact that schools were, under the Letter, to be run by clerics, who had control even of the textbooks to be used.

yoganinja wrote: »

Re the question - still perplexed as to how you think I can answer a question on what would happen based on you thinking that I am going to this meeting to persuade people to divest (I think you may have even suggested I wanted them to hand over schools to me) The meeting on Monday is about the role of religion on admissions, divestment is only a tiny part of the issue

Well, you're the one who's telling us what you're bringing up at your forum; if you're not thinking you can effect change by doing so, why are you bringing it up?

yoganinja wrote: »

I don't have the gift of foresight but I'm absolutely certain the Stanley letter isn't going to be something I bring up on Monday - my focus will be on constitutional issues

Probably just as well... it appears you may end up feeling you've wasted your time digging into the depths of it given that it doesn't seem to support the view you think it does.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I think we're well past the idea that only secular education was to be provided in schools, but feel free to selectively quote anything you imagine supports such an argument You've acknowledged that the Stanley letter set out that non secular education was to be provided on specific days (just as secular education was to be), which in itself knocks your argument that the Stanley Letter sets out the explicitly secular nature of the National School system on it's head. You've disproved your own assertion, even without the fact that schools were, under the Letter, to be run by clerics, who had control even of the textbooks to be used.

Well, you're the one who's telling us what you're bringing up at your forum; if you're not thinking you can effect change by doing so, why are you bringing it up?

Probably just as well... it appears you may end up feeling you've wasted your time digging into the depths of it given that it doesn't seem to support the view you think it does.

a school curriculum that expressly forbids any religious instruction during school hours and offering of denominational instruction outside of school hours (gosh it's nearly like they were proposing a model similar to one that reemerge 130 years later). But if you want to say that model isn't one where there is a secular school day with add on denom outside school hours - fire ahead ... it's an interesting take you have on things

I'm going to pass on your suggestions on what you think I should or shouldn't do at a forum looking at what role religion should have on admissions , thanks all the same. I find it strange that you don't seem to understand what this forum
Is about though , you appear to think that divestment is the key issue. Maybe you need to read up a little more on the issue?

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

a school curriculum that expressly forbids any religious instruction during school hours and offering of denominational instruction outside of school hours (gosh it's nearly like they were proposing a model similar to one that reemerge 130 years later). But if you want to say that model isn't one where there is a secular school day with add on denom outside school hours - fire ahead ... it's an interesting take you have on things

That's not actually what the Stanley Letter does though, is it? To forestall a reenactment of the pages after the post recedite linked which would be boring for those who read them (even potentially trite!) already, if you read through the thread (and the letter, obviously), maybe you can put forward an idea that wasn't debunked at the time?

yoganinja wrote: »

I'm going to pass on your suggestions on what you think I should or shouldn't do at a forum looking at what role religion should have on admissions , thanks all the same. I find it strange that you don't seem to understand what this forum Is about though , you appear to think that divestment is the key issue. Maybe you need to read up a little more on the issue?

Perish the notion that I'm suggesting you do anything at all at your forum! I'm simply asking you to report on the effect of what you told us you are going to do, when you've done it. You did say you're welcoming the opportunity to (yet again) bring up the topic of the stunning reticence of 'those divesting' to touch this topic of real level of divestment necessary on Monday morning at the Forum on the Role of Religion in School Admissions, didn't you? Since you haven't mentioned bringing anything else up, won't you be engaging with whatever you think this forum is about?

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

That's not actually what the Stanley Letter does though, is it? To forestall a reenactment of the pages after the post recedite linked which would be boring for those who read them (even potentially trite!) already, if you read through the thread (and the letter, obviously), maybe you can put forward an idea that wasn't debunked at the time?
Perish the notion that I'm suggesting you do anything at all at your forum! I'm simply asking you to report on the effect of what you told us you are going to do, when you've done it. You did say you're welcoming the opportunity to (yet again) bring up the topic of the stunning reticence of 'those divesting' to touch this topic of real level of divestment necessary on Monday morning at the Forum on the Role of Religion in School Admissions, didn't you? Since you haven't mentioned bringing anything else up, won't you be engaging with whatever you think this forum is about?

Debunked? Hmmm I see you putting forward your arguments /opinions and others disagreeing and then it appears to fizzle out.

Divestment is only a minor part of the issue re religion and admissions, even if any substantial effort had been made or is made on this it will have absolutely no impact on religion/admission in those schools in the denominational
Sector that chose to rely on a derrogation from equality legislation to support their discriminatory policies. The equal treatment of all in respect of access is what I will be speaking about

recedite

yoganinja wrote: »

The equal treatment of all in respect of access is what I will be speaking about

The usual retort to this idea of equality is the counter idea that religious institutions are entitled to protect their own ethos, which gives rise to the exemption principle inserted into the so-called Equal Status Acts...

Education Equality wrote: »

section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 was inserted to provide an exemption from the prohibition of discrimination in the provision of education

IMO the key to tackling this is to say that the state is not entitled to claim this exemption (and therefore neither are any state-subsidised schools)

A school that was fully private funded would be entitled to discriminate against families because of their religion, much as a private golf club can discriminate against women members.

But the state may not employ discrimination against any of its citizens (currently it does, of course).

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

Debunked? Hmmm I see you putting forward your arguments /opinions and others disagreeing and then it appears to fizzle out.

That's true; it did rather fizzle out when people realised their assumptions were founded on something that didn't exist in the 1830s. But still, having read it, it shouldn't dissuade you from putting forward anything credible that you think supports your belief?

yoganinja wrote: »

Divestment is only a minor part of the issue re religion and admissions, even if any substantial effort had been made or is made on this it will have absolutely no impact on religion/admission in those schools in the denominational
Sector that chose to rely on a derrogation from equality legislation to support their discriminatory policies. The equal treatment of all in respect of access is what I will be speaking about

So... you've changed your mind about what you'll be bringing up then. Is that because of what you've learnt from the current discussion? There were some interesting points on the subject of discrimination and derogations a while back too which you might find informative; Peregrinus's posts in particular are generally food for thought.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

That's true; it did rather fizzle out when people realised their assumptions were founded on something that didn't exist in the 1830s. But still, having read it, it shouldn't dissuade you from putting forward anything credible that you think supports your belief?
So... you've changed your mind about what you'll be bringing up then. Is that because of what you've learnt from the current discussion? There were some interesting points on the subject of discrimination and derogations a while back too which you might find informative; Peregrinus's posts in particular are generally food for thought.

You really have an interesting way of looking at things - anyhoo nope I haven't changed my mind on what I'll be bringing up - it was you that focussed in on my desired outcome being persuading people to hand over schools to me (helluava mental leap there , by the way)
Divestment is not the key focus of this particular meeting it will be , for me and many, ensuring equality of access to all children to publicly funded schools