School patronage

seamus

I think you may have over reacted to something I never said?

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

Are you joking? Why does this question need to be answered?

Because I'm curious to know why you think anyone would be incapable of educating their own children at home. It's clear that it's not the type of education you would want for your children, but the fact that it's grown in popularity by a factor of 90% in the last 5 years or so in Irish society suggests that in actual fact it is a viable option that more and more parents in Irish society are choosing for their children, and that has wider implications for Irish society as a whole in that Irish social demographics are changing, and more and more people are choosing an informal education which means that Irish society will have to adapt to this new and growing phenomenon which just made it a hell of a lot harder for advocates of any type of formal education.

It is because not everyone has the available time, money, resources and ability to do so.
So you think that everyone has access to this?
If so, what a lovely world you live in.

Actually it is because some people are willing to do what it takes to prioritise their children's education over other lifestyle choices that other people aren't willing to make for themselves. There are a number of supports available for people who choose home schooling as a lifestyle and an education model for their children, it's not as though anyone is expected to be able to do everything themselves. You would know this though if you were interested enough in education instead of telling me what a lovely world I must live in, when it's exactly the same world you live in, or closer to home - at least exactly the same Irish society we both live in. The difference between us it appears is that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in imposing my ideologies on other people, and in particular their children, who are the future of Irish society.

It can be. Secular education with supplemental religious education.

If that's the type of education you want for your children, I would fully support you in your efforts. But it appears you don't want to stop there. You want to impose your preferences on everyone else and their children too, which I can tell you now is a non-starter from the get-go and I would fully expect a backlash if I were you. The harder you try to force it, I expect the backlash to be proportionate. Values like tolerance and understanding aren't learned in a formal school environment, they're learned at home, within the family, the fundamental foundation of Irish society, of any society for that matter.

Yet, seems like the only people who get what they want is the few people who want a catholic ethos.

Why are they not required to sacrifice?

And that argument is based on the premise that all religious ethos schools are created equal. One doesn't need to be particularly learned in matters of education and Irish society to observe that is patently untrue. I wouldn't expect if every school were managed by the State, that circumstances would be any different. Clearly there are more considerations involved than solely whether a school is of a religious ethos or none. I would suggest that socioeconomic factors play a far greater role in parents choices for their children's education. The Irish Constitution acknowledges this fact in allowing parents to choose a type of education for their children that is within their means. It means that families in areas of social depravation also generally lack the means to enrol their children in schools which would be beyond their means. That's not a problem with the education system, it's a problem with the way the Irish State does not sufficiently provide for families which would give them the means and the opportunities to enrol their children in schools where their children will receive a better standard of education. It's called second and third level generation poverty.

The small minority of people who actually specifically want catholic ethos schools get that luxury.
Why do they alone get that luxury?

Given that it's been pointed out numerous times in numerous threads already (and I hope the Mods will allow me some leverage on this as I am trying to relate my points to how education influences Irish society as a whole and the influence of the various types of education on Irish society, be it religious, non-religious (colloquially termed 'secular'), or otherwise) - the question of what type of education parents want for their children has never been put to the vote so how you could determine that it's a minority is something I for one would love to see the methodology of your investigation that led you to that conclusion. As I've suggested already - clearly there are a number of factors parents consider in choosing how their children are to receive a minimum standard of education mandated by the State.

Why not my suggested system were they and everyone else are extended that same luxury?
Or would that require too much sacrifice on their part?

You take something away from someone and try and pass it's replacement off as a luxury? I've said it before and I'll say it again - people are not as stupid as some people need them to be.

So you disagree with the UN when they conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights?

I disagree with the committees interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Charter. The document itself was a good idea in principle, but given the lack of consensus among member states due to how each of the members societies have evolved since the founding of the UN - it's execution has been poor, with certain vested interests having more influence than others, meaning the document can be interpreted differently according to whatever way the political winds are blowing.

looksee wrote: »

So sorry you have had to give up on your Lamborghini OEJ. That is indeed a terrible sacrifice to make.

Of course the playing field is pretty level with third level education, you don't have to consider your religious beliefs - though how children manage in third level without that all important ethos I have no idea, it must be a dreadful shock to the system. In fact when you look at it you find that after all that primary and sometimes secondary religious education, the number of children who fall away from the church when they get into third level is quite alarming. You would almost think all that religious education was a waste of time.

Well I can understand why you would think all that religious education was a waste of time in primary and secondary school, but by the time they are entering third level education, they are closer to adulthood than childhood (unless you subscribe to the notion of an in-between adolescent period where they are considered too immature to be entering third level education hence the high drop out rates), and expected to have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. If they pass through third level education unscathed, then go on to become parents themselves, there are a great deal of the same number who fell away from the Church, suddenly find their way back again! I'd be more curious about that phenomenon in Irish adults in Irish society, than wondering about why they went off the rails as soon as they entered third level education.

Using your rationale, one might be given to wondering why parents ever saved up for their children's third level education given that it turned out to be both a waste of time and money, when they could have bought themselves a Lambo. I've prepared for that eventuality by instilling a sense of self-sufficiency in my child so that if the time comes that he chooses to avail of third level education, he will have the means to fund his own further education without needing to be given money. I generally find that when people are just given something, they often fail to appreciate it's value. When they have to work for it themselves however, they tend to value it quite a bit more, and do not see their efforts as a waste of time and considerable resources. I find there to be a more pervasive attitude of self-entitlement in Irish society in some quarters, as though they should just be handed everything in the interests of what they see as 'fairness'. Clearly, we have very different values which influence our perception of fairness in Irish society.

Forcing something upon someone who doesn't want it, I think we can all agree though, isn't fair. That's why as much as I support the idea of secular education for those parents who want it for their children, I don't think it's fair that they should engage in the same tactics they find unfair on them. It seems to run counter-productive to the ideal of a Secular State, where the State has no influence in the affairs of religious bodies, and religious bodies have no influence in affairs of the State. Unfortunately while that may be a good idea in theory, the State has an obligation to the welfare of it's citizens, and therefore is duty bound to provide for things like education, health, housing and so on.

But going back to the playing field, the parents who stayed at home to educate their children would not have had the opportunity to save for third level. Now that's a sacrifice - giving up third level to give your child the primary education you felt was best for them. Though you have the consolation that you have maintained fairness in the system, in allowing all those other children to get the religious education their parents could not be bothered making other arrangements for.

And tbh all that makes about as much sense as the arguments for the status quo that have been presented here.

I don't know how you make that out? Home schooling doesn't necessarily mean that the parents are educating their children first of all, and secondly, the fact that they would be unable to afford third level education for their children is nothing more than an assumption - we are able to afford our childs third level education even though my wife has always been a stay at home mother. As I mentioned to King Mob already - there are numerous supports available for parents who choose to home school their children outside of a formal education setting, and even then there is nothing to prevent their children from entering third level formal education should their children choose to enter formal third level education.

I'm not going to pass judgement on how other parents choose to educate their children though, I'm perfectly capable of accepting that sometimes other people make choices for themselves and their children that make absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. I don't think the way I've chosen to educate my child is any better or worse than the way they've chosen to educate their children. If children are indeed the future of Irish society, then some people will indeed have to come to terms with their own argument that Irish society is becoming more diverse, and a 'one size fits all' education system, or any type of 'one size is assumed to fit all' system, is just as unfair on Irish society as a whole, as the system they wish to replace. That kind of argument sounds like change just for the sake of change, rather than acknowledging that in order to actually effect change in the status quo, they're going to have to acknowledge the real barriers to their ideology first, and then work to overcome those barriers, rather than what they imagine are the barriers to getting people to buy into their ideology.

Absolam

seamus wrote: »

So, yes is your answer. So if the purpose of a school was to provide a strictly secular education, you agree that denying places to Catholic children is just fine, because there's always the risk they might start talking to other children about Jesus in the classroom. And you can't have that in secular education. That's cool, just checking how consistent you were.

Just fine is your terminology, not mine, but I'm happy to agree that, equally, a school whose objective is to provide an education with an exclusively secular ethos should be able to prefer pupils most likely to align with that ethos. And receive state funding. If you're genuinely concerned about my consistency, I'd suggest you simply review my previous posts. I think you'll find they're entirely consistent.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

a school whose objective is to provide an education with an exclusively secular ethos should be able to prefer pupils most likely to align with that ethos.

And how about a school for "non stamp collectors" that prefers not to admit any kids whose parents collect stamps. State funding for them too?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

And how about a school for "non stamp collectors" that prefers not to admit any kids whose parents collect stamps. State funding for them too?

If you can find a way to parlay anti-philately into an ethos that garners sufficient support from parents to warrant a school then have at it, it doesn't sound illegal.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

If you can find a way to parlay anti-philately into an ethos that garners sufficient support from parents to warrant a school then have at it, it doesn't sound illegal.

But there you have it Absolam, non-stamp collecting is not the same as anti-stamp collecting.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

But there you have it Absolam, non-stamp collecting is not the same as anti-stamp collecting.

You're not being terribly clear about what it is you think I have there looksee. It's not my concept, so I'm pretty comfortable with recedite calling it non-philately, or non stamp collectors, or anything else he would like to call it; something catchy couldn't hurt.

Samaris

"Everyone must collect stamps!"
"But I don't want to collect stamps, I want to do something else."
"EVERYONE MUST COLLECT STAMPS - and be baptised a philatelist, because we are a philatelist country and our schools are set up that way."
"No, I really don't want to collect stamps - and I don't see why the -education system- is set up to encourage stamp-collecting, or if it comes to that, why the philatelists run it either. Why not have an education system set up around -education- and let parents collect stamps with their children if they want?"
"It's so unfair that you want to take this away from the philatelists! If you don't like collecting stamps, maybe you should educate your children at home!"
"...Or we could all start at the same level and then children that do and don't want to collect stamps can get an education together and the stamp thing can be a family thing..? Rather than one group getting a benefit and cornering the education system and everyone else getting stuck with it. Even the non-philately schools are getting filled up with stamp-collecting children, so it's hardly working well for everyone here. Why should philatelists get the luxury of defacto philately schools at the expense of everyone out there that isn't one and just wants an education?"
"Why do you hate stamps? What would you be teaching these children about stamps if philatelists aren't there to guide them? It should stay how it is and anyone who doesn't like stamps should just work around it. How dare they ask sensible stamp-collecters in a stamp-collecting country to make such a sacrifice for their lazy, non-philatelist children. Hmph."

"...What the hell just happened?"

Couldn't have gone for an easier hobby to spell, no?

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

It's not my concept, so I'm pretty comfortable with recedite calling it non-philately...

He called it non-philately or non stamp collecting, whereas, you called it anti-philately. Misrepresenting, always misrepresenting...

Absolam wrote: »

If you can find a way to parlay anti-philately...

robindch

^^^ The fossil record is a terrible thing.

PopePalpatine

Samaris wrote: »

"Everyone must collect stamps!"
"But I don't want to collect stamps, I want to do something else."
"EVERYONE MUST COLLECT STAMPS - and be baptised a philatelist, because we are a philatelist country and our schools are set up that way."
"No, I really don't want to collect stamps - and I don't see why the -education system- is set up to encourage stamp-collecting, or if it comes to that, why the philatelists run it either. Why not have an education system set up around -education- and let parents collect stamps with their children if they want?"
"It's so unfair that you want to take this away from the philatelists! If you don't like collecting stamps, maybe you should educate your children at home!"
"...Or we could all start at the same level and then children that do and don't want to collect stamps can get an education together and the stamp thing can be a family thing..? Rather than one group getting a benefit and cornering the education system and everyone else getting stuck with it. Even the non-philately schools are getting filled up with stamp-collecting children, so it's hardly working well for everyone here. Why should philatelists get the luxury of defacto philately schools at the expense of everyone out there that isn't one and just wants an education?"
"Why do you hate stamps? What would you be teaching these children about stamps if philatelists aren't there to guide them? It should stay how it is and anyone who doesn't like stamps should just work around it. How dare they ask sensible stamp-collecters in a stamp-collecting country to make such a sacrifice for their lazy, non-philatelist children. Hmph."

"...What the hell just happened?"

Couldn't have gone for an easier hobby to spell, no?

You forgot stamp collectors comparing an education system that doesn't discriminate based on whether one collects stamps to Lamborghinis.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

"Everyone must collect stamps!"
"But I don't want to collect stamps, I want to do something else."
"
...

"...What the hell just happened?"

Couldn't have gone for an easier hobby to spell, no?

I see that conversation going somewhat differently myself, perhaps because I don't regard the philately analogy as analogous. A much better analogy would be to frame the discussion in terms of lifestyle choices, and the decisions that parents make for themselves and their children.

Now the conversation goes somewhat differently -

"I don't want my child or children to be educated in a school with a religious ethos"

"Fair enough"

"I don't want your children to be educated in a school with a religious ethos either"

"Sorry?"

"It's bad for them and it's bad for society, they'll be brainwashed into believing in sky fairies and they won't be able to think for themselves and they'll be so poorly prepared for the real world having wasted all that time having all that religious nonsense crammed down their throats..."

"I'm listening..."

"No you're not, because you've been brainwashed as a child too, you grew up in a cult, a paedophile cult that teaches you to hate women and people who are LGBT and you have a contagious infection, you're mentally ill, you're not as intelligent as me because you're religious and studies have shown that religious people are more intolerant, bigoted, ignorant, of lesser intelligence than people who don't live their lives by a 2,000 year old book written by goat herders..."

"I haven't heard this a million times before, but tell me, what does that have to do with my decisions regarding my childs education?"

"I knew you weren't listening, I said 'paedophiles' and you didn't even flinch!"

"Right, but that's because..."

"What about the laundries? You only want to send your child to a Catholic school so you can have the days out! You're a sheep, you have no mind of your own because you're missing something in your life and that's why you're hanging onto your superstitions. If you were born in Saudi Arabia you'd probably be a Muslim!"

"Wanna wrap it up here because I've got better things to be doing?"

"Children in secular education have better outcomes and are more social, more altruistic, more liberal, more fair, more tolerant and more understanding..."

"Truthfully, if you're an example of the kind of person my child would become if I was to support your model of education, I dread to think of my child turning out anything like you. No thanks, I will not be supporting your model of education"


You could just swap in vegans vs meat eaters there if you like, the comparison would be equally valid, but stamp collecting pre-supposes that religion is a hobby and not a lifestyle choice, of which education is part of that, and not the other way round, as is commonly portrayed amongst people who are non-religious when preaching to the choir (not aimed at you Samaris, or any of the posters here in particular, but it's a general commentary on the sort of person I meet who proposes that everyone should fall in line with their ideas for society, and that's generally the way the conversation tends to pan out).

Fundamentalist extremists of any flavour, are painfully annoying, no matter what their ideology.

looksee

"Children in secular education have better outcomes and are more social, more altruistic, more liberal, more fair, more tolerant and more understanding..."

"Truthfully, if you're an example of the kind of person my child would become if I was to support your model of education, I dread to think of my child turning out anything like you. No thanks, I will not be supporting your model of education"

Well no, I was educated in a catholic school, by the 'Christian' Brothers. My attitude is a direct result of that.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Well no, I was educated in a catholic school, by the 'Christian' Brothers. My attitude is a direct result of that.

Looksee I wouldn't even consider you in any way even remotely like the type of person I was characterising above. I did say that the above wasn't aimed at posters here but it's a typical example of the kind of fundamentalist extremist who sees themselves as an example of the way everyone else in society should live their lives, the kind of person who subscribes to the Dawkins and Harris school of how to come off like a complete loon (although Harris has of late become somewhat more moderate). John Cleese explains it well, and although this clip relates to politics, it could equally apply to religion and those who oppose it's influence in society -

If I were solely to base my opinion on my own personal experience, I would be given to thinking parents are incapable of being the best educators of their children given that I was beaten senseless as a child on a regular basis. However, because I prefer to take an objective view, I know my parents were far from the norm and that most parents don't literally try to beat some sense into their children by beating them senseless (counter-productive really!), nor were most of the Christian Brothers anything like what you experienced.

Certainly as I've mentioned before, my experience of the Christian Brothers couldn't have been any more the opposite of some people's perceptions. I doubt I'm unique or unusual in that regard either, which is perhaps why I don't flinch when I meet an extremist fundamentalist who thinks attempting to instill fear and paranoia and in people, or attempting to humiliate them, are actually effective methods of having people come round to their way of thinking. Historically, such methods have proven ineffective as a long-term strategy.

looksee

OEJ My reply was a hypothetical contribution to your hypothetical discussion, not my personal experience.

I would not consider it fundamental extremism to offer all children a religion-neutral educational experience, with religious instruction being an add-on organised by parents and the respective churches.

The arguments for the continued resistance to secular schooling that are continually given here are pretty much insupportable in an egalitarian society. I do not believe that the endless repetition of the intellectually limited, supposedly religious, ideas that are offered here are a reflection of Irish society - religious and non-religious - as a whole. Certainly the ridiculous 'a school for every ethos and belief' theory that has been expounded at length here is pretty much trolling, no reasonable person - religious or otherwise - could see this as being any sort of a solution to anything.

I have been religious, I do not regret it. I am no longer religious. What other people choose to believe is of no concern to me and I accept that many people find comfort and support in their faith. That is great for them. It does not mean that I wish to share it with them or have it imposed on anyone who chooses not to engage with it.

Maths, science, languages, history and geography, music, art and exercise can all be offered to children - and mostly are - without any involvement with religion. The part that religion has played in history, the influence of religion on music, art and literature should not be omitted, but learning about religions and their influence is not the same as being taught that one of the religions is Truth and must be believed. Nor should any teacher be obliged to pretend belief in order to be a teacher. Does any church really want mere lip service in the promotion of its beliefs? How much better if the priests and church leaders and parents taught their sincerely held beliefs to their children.

Who is the patron of a school is not a religious matter, it is a political one. It is not the church that is responsible for the continuation of the school system we have, it is the government that needs to learn to think for itself and govern.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

He called it non-philately or non stamp collecting, whereas, you called it anti-philately. Misrepresenting, always misrepresenting...

Well, he called it non stamp collecting so I guess my misrepresentation by giving it my own name is about as egregious (to non stamp collectors) as those who substitute the term anti-choice for pro-life on A&A, and somewhat less egregious than your own claim that he actually called it non-philately when he didn't?

I have a feeling that pointing yourmisrepresentation (even leaving aside the unfounded 'always') is likely to be considered unjustifiably pedantic, unlike your pointing out my renaming, so I'll just say that whether we use recedites name or mine doesn't appear to make a material difference to his argument, and I remain mystified as to why looksee believes 'there I have' anything at all..

robindch wrote: »

^^^ The fossil record is a terrible thing.

Which is not to say conclusions drawn from it are always accurate

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

robindch wrote:

^^^ The fossil record is a terrible thing.

Which is not to say conclusions drawn from it are always accurate

Without dropping down one of your word-splitting, "devil's advocate" rabbit-holes, you will find that the fossil record here on boards is more than adequate to the task of indicating that you did not say what you subsequently claimed, but instead, that you said exactly what another poster said you said.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

The arguments for the continued resistance to secular schooling that are continually given here are pretty much insupportable in an egalitarian society. I do not believe that the endless repetition of the intellectually limited, supposedly religious, ideas that are offered here are a reflection of Irish society - religious and non-religious - as a whole. Certainly the ridiculous 'a school for every ethos and belief' theory that has been expounded at length here is pretty much trolling, no reasonable person - religious or otherwise - could see this as being any sort of a solution to anything.

The thing is though, the ridiculous 'a school for every ethos and belief' theory doesn't seem to be one that's ever put forward by anyone supporting it. I think it's a strawman; you say that it would not be practical for all children to be taught whatever shade and nuance of their religion (or their parents' religion) in a school setting despite no one saying it would be practical, you say the argument that the State should pay for duplicate schools is ridiculous despite no one offering it, according to you someone thinks it is reasonable to duplicate all schools everywhere to accommodate all shades of religion even though no one has posted that they think so. Posters will certainly say if you want a school with particular ethos or belief, go for it. They might even agree that the State should not discriminate between schools on the basis of ethoi when funding them, but rather on parental support, they might say they support diversity in education so we have a choice of different educational models for everyone to choose from. Obviously agreeing to any or all of these points doesn't actually amount to 'a school for every ethos and belief'.

But the thing is, when looksee the poster associates that argument with continued resistance to secular schooling and calls it trolling, I'd be concerned that looksee the mod will follow with action against anyone who is resistant to exclusively secular schooling because previous posts have shown it to be trolling. I hope that won't be the case.

robindch wrote: »

Without dropping down one of your word-splitting, "devil's advocate" rabbit-holes, you will find that the fossil record here on boards is more than adequate to the task of indicating that you did not say what you subsequently claimed, but instead, that you said exactly what another poster said you said.

With all due deference to pejorative characterisations, I'm happy to avoid any 'he said she said' and stand confidently over the unamended record

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

And how about a school for "non stamp collectors" that prefers not to admit any kids whose parents collect stamps. State funding for them too?

Relatively neutral, although "prefers not to admit" does leave a way to;

Absolam wrote: »

If you can find a way to parlay anti-philately into an ethos that garners sufficient support from parents to warrant a school then have at it, it doesn't sound illegal.

No longer neutral.

looksee wrote: »

But there you have it Absolam, non-stamp collecting is not the same as anti-stamp collecting.

Back to neutral.

Absolam wrote: »

You're not being terribly clear about what it is you think I have there looksee. It's not my concept, so I'm pretty comfortable with recedite calling it non-philately, or non stamp collectors, or anything else he would like to call it; something catchy couldn't hurt.

Indication that whichever term is equally applicable?

If this is what started the scrap, looks like there's a fundamental lack of alignment in terms of what words mean. Absolam -appears- to be using "non" and "anti" interchangeably here, which suggests that the patient explanations of wanting secular schooling not being -anti-religion-, but rather being -non-religious- may be ultimately pointless.

Non-religious; I have no real issue with people being religious, I am not, and I do not want to be forced to pay lip-service to it. Nor do I believe that school education should push children to a specific religion.

Anti-religious: Ban religion!

Bit of a difference there. Conversation would probably progress better if we could all agree on the meaning of the prefix "non-" vs "anti-".

Absolam

Samaris wrote: »

If this is what started the scrap, looks like there's a fundamental lack of alignment in terms of what words mean. Absolam -appears- to be using "non" and "anti" interchangeably here, which suggests that the patient explanations of wanting secular schooling not being -anti-religion-, but rather being -non-religious- may be ultimately pointless. <...> Bit of a difference there. Conversation would probably progress better if we could all agree on the meaning of the prefix "non-" vs "anti-".

Well, as I said, it's not my concept, so I'm pretty comfortable with recedite calling it non-philately, or non stamp collectors, or anything else he would like to call it.... which also requires no debating the meaning of words.

If we leave the hobbyists out of it entirely (which seems fair) and return to the meat of the discussion, it seems to me there is a clear distinction between wanting to have State funded secular schools, such schools being non-religious, and wanting all State funded schools to be made exclusively secular, an ambition which would be anti religious. Both non and anti would seem to be appropriate prefixes; just for two different things.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

OEJ My reply was a hypothetical contribution to your hypothetical discussion, not my personal experience.

I would not consider it fundamental extremism to offer all children a religion-neutral educational experience, with religious instruction being an add-on organised by parents and the respective churches.

I wouldn't consider it fundamentalist extremism to offer all parents the opportunity to avail of a religion-neutral educational experience, as it is the parents who make these decisions on behalf of their children. However, instead of offering, what appears to be happening here sounds more like demanding that parents should have no choice in how they would want their children to be educated, and that is simply repugnant to the Irish Constitution, for a number of reasons which have been exhaustively outlined already. You're not offering something if you aren't giving the intended recipient the opportunity to decline your 'offer'. I would have no issue if the offer were made; my issue is with the lack of an opportunity to decline the offer.

Now, before you suggest that I would have the opportunity to decline the offer on the basis that I would have the opportunity then to avail of the offers I am putting forward, do you really think that any reasonable person who already has what they want, would choose to avail of such an offer? If you wouldn't avail of the opportunity on the basis that it appears unreasonable, then why would you put it forward as a suggested viable alternative for anyone else? If you're not prepared to act against your own self-interest, then why would you think anyone else should?

The arguments for the continued resistance to secular schooling that are continually given here are pretty much insupportable in an egalitarian society. I do not believe that the endless repetition of the intellectually limited, supposedly religious, ideas that are offered here are a reflection of Irish society - religious and non-religious - as a whole. Certainly the ridiculous 'a school for every ethos and belief' theory that has been expounded at length here is pretty much trolling, no reasonable person - religious or otherwise - could see this as being any sort of a solution to anything.

Yes, in an egalitarian society they would be, but I don't agree that we live in an egalitarian society, or anything even close to it for that matter. I am not resistant to secular schooling for those parents who would want that model of education for their children. I am resistant to the idea that it should be the only model offered to all parents for their children. I do not regard the arguments for offering alternative models of education actually are intellectually limited, particularly when there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence which suggests that other models of education are certainly as viable as the model that you're putting forward. It appears a more tailored approach to education is the way forward, rather than the intellectually limited 'one size fits all' approach.

If you see that as trolling, it's certainly not intended that way. I'm always cognisant of the forum I'm in, and I've never set out to wind people up, I've always accepted that I'd be on the back foot in trying to put forward arguments here which may be perceived as lacking in intellectual rigour. Rest assured I've always been passionate about education since childhood, and the argument that all parents should be offered the same model of education for their children appears to me to be based upon the idea that all children think the same.

Suggesting that someone arguing against this idea must be either trolling, or that their arguments are intellectually limited, or that they are arguing from a position of privilege, is at best ironic.

I have been religious, I do not regret it. I am no longer religious. What other people choose to believe is of no concern to me and I accept that many people find comfort and support in their faith. That is great for them. It does not mean that I wish to share it with them or have it imposed on anyone who chooses not to engage with it.

We're pretty much on the same page then. I would have no interest for instance in sending my child to an Islamic school or to an ET school, or to a school where 'secular' to them means that religion is completely absent from the curriculum, or to a school where their ethos is promoting any world views, values, philosophies, which I do not share and have no interest in supporting. I would be paying the same tax, regardless of how the Government of the day chooses to distribute it's revenue, and to that end I would never want to see any parent denied the opportunity to have their children educated according to a model which is consistent with their world views, values and philosophies. I may not agree with them, but I would never deny them the opportunity at least.

Maths, science, languages, history and geography, music, art and exercise can all be offered to children - and mostly are - without any involvement with religion. The part that religion has played in history, the influence of religion on music, art and literature should not be omitted, but learning about religions and their influence is not the same as being taught that one of the religions is Truth and must be believed. Nor should any teacher be obliged to pretend belief in order to be a teacher. Does any church really want mere lip service in the promotion of its beliefs? How much better if the priests and church leaders and parents taught their sincerely held beliefs to their children.

That's a good argument for the model of education you would want for your children. It's a terrible argument if your intent is to convince other people that they should also want your model of education for their children when they have other values and world views to yours.

I believe I've already addressed the idea that no teacher should be required to be an adherent of a particular religion in order to teach in a school of a religious ethos which is inconsistent with their own world views. They aren't required to pretend anything. It's better for the person themselves obviously if they seek alternative employment if they don't want to teach in a school with a religious ethos, but I would apply that same rationale to anyone who did not want to adhere to the conditions of an employer they were seeking employment from. If people don't want to teach in religious ethos schools, they aren't forced to, and yes, I would agree that it is better for a schools ethos and staff and student morale if all of the people involved in the children's education, including their parents, are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I think that's the fundamental misunderstanding is going on here - schools with a religious ethos are providing a model of education that they would provide no matter how many children are enrolled in the school. ET schools provide the model of education that they do no matter how many children are enrolled in the school. Special educational needs schools provide the model of education they do no matter how many children are enrolled in the school. State funding is provided on the basis of the number of children enrolled in the school. Withdrawal of State funding from schools which are providing a service to the State would mean that the State is negligent in it's duty to provide for the education of children, and would be discrimination on the basis of religion.

How that argument is any different from arguments that suggest the State is already negligent in it's duty to provide for the education of children whose parents object to a particular model of education for their children, is simply a matter of perspective, and the State has consistently argued that it is only obliged to make reasonable accommodations for parents, and does not oblige parents to enrol their children in institutions which are inconsistent with their values. I would not wish to have my child enrolled in a school which promotes a model of education which I would argue is not in the best interests of my child. The State would however be required to fund my childs education if he were enrolled in an educational institution which meets the criteria mandated by the State.

Who is the patron of a school is not a religious matter, it is a political one. It is not the church that is responsible for the continuation of the school system we have, it is the government that needs to learn to think for itself and govern.

At least that much we do agree on, but in order for that to happen, it would require that the people elect political representatives who actually represent their interests. It's something that most people do already, but it just so happens that the education and welfare of other people's children just doesn't appear to be that high on people's lists of priorities. The few political representatives that do appear to represent people who want a change in the status quo would hardly qualify as towers of intellect IMO, but rather appear to be a sorry collection of intellectually limited individuals.

Samaris

What do you think the options are if you want to teach but don't want to be forced to teach children what are as far as you're concerned, lies, and lies that you must teach on a par with science and maths? Well, there's always the Educate Together schools? Yeah, there are, but a much smaller proportion of them, and a smaller proportion than there are Catholic schools. Not to mention that Catholic children can go to ET schools, which can then block off non-religious children too.


One issue is that if non-religious children go to religious schools (likely because there's a lack of choice), the parents then have to deal with the fallout of "Mammy, why does my teacher say that I'm going to hell because I don't go to Mass?" or "The priest said..." etcetera. This is obviously an issue that religious parents don't mind about, but it would be nice if they'd give some consideration to other peoples lives being made harder for their choice to have religion mixed in with something that doesn't need it.

Maybe "the State school system" (disregarding specialist private schools and the like) could focus on educating the children and not spending what is actually a ridiculous amount of time on religion (infant classes and primary school classes in general spend 2hrs 30mins/week* on religion which is actually rather a lot for those parents who consider it somewhat dangerous nonsense). Sounds about right for my school too, half an hour religion class per day (plus prayers first thing in the morning, before break, Angelus, before lunch, after lunch, home time) and have what is an -extra- that does not apply to all children and is not an educational subject as it is taught, taught at home by the parents who want to instil their beliefs into their own children.

It is just starting at a neutral level and letting all the children develop religion (or not) as they and their parents wish, rather than having a starting point of religion must be imposed upon all and parents have to jump through hoops to neutralise it, including by just pulling their children during the relevant classes (which is a daft waste of time). That would not have to happen the other way around. After-school classes, Sunday school, none of that is being argued against, but it is not fair either to waste the time of children who are not part of X religion to try and indoctrinate them. (I'd be fine with general religion classes; the development of religion and culture and how religion and culture affect each other, what the beliefs are of various different large religions, etcetera). But two and a half hours of being taught to recite the Catholic prayers is not educational to many children.

The arguments that secular parents are being selfish in preferring "Catholic" wasn't the default stance rather than "neutral" aren't being selfish. The Catholics happen to have a significant advantage in schooling and are demanding to keep it at the expense of those who are not Catholics. That advantage stretches to choice of school, range of schools and the level of Catholicism they will get exposed to as Fact. Which is surprisingly unfair on young children who are being taught that teacher is wrong on this point, but should be listened to on all other topics.

I am amused by the "well, in an egalitarian society, everyone should have the option for whatever schools they like" argument that implies non-Catholics are being unreasonable about 96.8%** of schools in Ireland being religious ethos. That's 91.1% RC and 5.7% Anglican. Quite, I agree (to an extent). But the argument as being presented here is mostly just an argument of "so we should keep our schools and you non-Catholics should go build your own".

If you're not prepared to act against your own self-interest, then why would you think anyone else should?

Actually, it's more "Yeah, you've been having to act against your own self-interest to make way for my self-interest for decades...tough, why should I give up my self-interest for equality for all citizens?" Also, Christian kindness? Courtesy to your fellow citizens? Social responsibility? Not screwing over non-Catholic children? Having the State education system that we all pay towards open on equal grounds to Catholics and non-Catholics without proceeding to muck around with the non-Catholic children's heads?

At least Catholicism is a lot saner on evolution and science in general than some other Christian sects that try to dominate schools though.


*As of 2011 https://www.into.ie/ROI/InformationforMedia/InformationforJournalists/TimeSpentonEachSubject.pdf
**As of 2010 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland, down in Types of Schools, about half-way down.

Absolam

Samaris wrote: »

What do you think the options are if you want to teach but don't want to be forced to teach children what are as far as you're concerned, lies, and lies that you must teach on a par with science and maths? Well, there's always the Educate Together schools? Yeah, there are, but a much smaller proportion of them, and a smaller proportion than there are Catholic schools. Not to mention that Catholic children can go to ET schools, which can then block off non-religious children too.

Would you say there's a lot of teachers out of work because of this at the moment? That Catholic children can go to schools where it's not taught wouldn't seem to make any difference to them I would think. Still, there seems to be people interested in having schools where that sort of stuff isn't taught, so if they feel that strongly about it, maybe they could get together and come up with a solution that works for them all.

Samaris wrote: »

Maybe "the State school system" (disregarding specialist private schools and the like) could focus on educating the children and not <...> instil their beliefs into their own children.

Maybe. Actually, not really. We've well covered that ground by now; it's not up to the State school system to educate anyone. Only to provide for their education. But see above for a potential resource for those who do want to provide an educational focus like you describe; whilst it's definitely not up to the State to do anything like what you propose, the option is there for others to do it, if they have the motivation.

Samaris wrote: »

The Catholics happen to have a significant advantage in schooling and are demanding to keep it at the expense of those who are not Catholics.

Why do you think anyone would give up an educational advantage their children have for the benefit of someone else's children?

Samaris wrote: »

I am amused by the "well, in an egalitarian society, everyone should have the option for whatever schools they like" argument that implies non-Catholics are being unreasonable about 96.8%** of schools in Ireland being religious ethos. That's 91.1% RC and 5.7% Anglican. Quite, I agree (to an extent). But the argument as being presented here is mostly just an argument of "so we should keep our schools and you non-Catholics should go build your own".

I think what's more amusing is the notion that people should give up what they have simply because others won't make the effort to obtain the same for themselves.... and of course agree whilst doing so that deliberately depriving them of even the possibility of the education they want (and currently have) for their children is for the greater good because someone else knows better than them.

Samaris

And ofc, modern Catholics all got together and decided that they would build their schools and it just so happened that the majority of schools were Catholic because the Catholics worked harder at it. It was nothing to do with State education being handed over to religious orders, funded by all taxpayers, nope.

That is an utterly disingenuous and dishonest argument. If we -were- all starting off the same and Catholics had just put in the effort, sure, I could agree with you. That didn't happen and you know it. The religious orders perked up in a new (and relatively poor) State and said "We'll totally run the education system..." and the State foolishly agreed and funded them to do so. This is an argument against a long-standing tradition that places many at a disadvantage for the sake of the adherents to one of many religious sects (albeit the dominant one).

That is the selfish argument. "This benefits me at your expense - lol, why should I give up my advantage for equality for your children?" Again, Christian ideals? Not screwing non-Catholic children for an utterly, utterly selfish reason.

Regarding the teacher thing, I know at least one person who would have made an excellent teacher, but worried over the religious question and ultimately could not reconcile teaching lies. Sure, anecdote, but you know as well as I do that I cannot prove a negative quantity. I'm sure your basic sense of honesty will allow you to put yourself in someone else's shoes a moment and consider if you could easily teach Zoroastrianism as Fact?

Absolam

Samaris wrote: »

And ofc, modern Catholics all got together and decided that they would build their schools and it just so happened that the majority of schools were Catholic because the Catholics worked harder at it. It was nothing to do with State education being handed over to religious orders, funded by all taxpayers, nope.

Oh, I see, it has to be modern to count. Why do I suspect the only people who think that are those who'd like to take for themselves what non-modern people built?

Samaris wrote: »

That is an utterly disingenuous and dishonest argument. If we -were- all starting off the same and Catholics had just put in the effort, sure, I could agree with you. That didn't happen and you know it. The religious orders perked up in a new (and relatively poor) State and said "We'll totally run the education system..." and the State foolishly agreed and funded them to do so. This is an argument against a long-standing tradition that places many at a disadvantage for the sake of the adherents to one of many religious sects (albeit the dominant one).

Well, the argument you've put forward might be. The real argument, that many Catholic schools were built on Catholic land with money put forward by Catholics for the purpose, as attested by looksee and Robindch, is more genuine and honest, but obviously suits the narrative a bit less. We're not all starting off the same; Christian educational organisations and the Churches have a long history of investing in education in this country. No one is denying anyone the opportunity to make the same investment, or even one a tenth of a thousandth of the size. Look back over the thread and the objections you'll see are not to any other philosophy having the same opportunity, but to the idea that existing investment should be taken and used for someone else's purposes.

Samaris wrote: »

4That is the selfish argument. "This benefits me at your expense - lol, why should I give up my advantage for equality for your children?" Again, Christian ideals? Not screwing non-Catholic children for an utterly, utterly selfish reason.

It is, though whether they benefit at someone else's expense is open to debate. Selfish arguments are common from parents when they are acting on behalf of their children; like it or lump it, very few parents would be willing to take their kids out of Gonzaga or Clongowes so that some other child can have a 'better' education. And be fair, it's equally, if not more, selfish to say I want to take someone else's schools and deny them the education they want for their children so that I can insist on the education I want for everyone's children.

Samaris wrote: »

Regarding the teacher thing, I know at least one person who would have made an excellent teacher, but worried over the religious question and ultimately could not reconcile teaching lies. Sure, anecdote, but you know as well as I do that I cannot prove a negative quantity. I'm sure your basic sense of honesty will allow you to put yourself in someone else's shoes a moment and consider if you could easily teach Zoroastrianism as Fact?

I imagine if I waned to teach Zoroastrianism as fact, I might look for a Zoroastrian school. If enough people wanted me to do it, I might even set one up. Perhaps there's yet an opportunity for your friend to find out if they would, in fact, be an excellent teacher?

looksee

Well, the argument you've put forward might be. The real argument, that many Catholic schools were built on Catholic land with money put forward by Catholics for the purpose, as attested by looksee and Robindch

Neither of us have said that in the sense that you are implying. You do enough twisting of your own words, don't do it with anyone else's.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Neither of us have said that in the sense that you are implying. You do enough twisting of your own words, don't do it with anyone else's.

I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of twisting any words, so I'll just quote the posts I was referring to;

looksee wrote: »

The secondary school graph shows a contribution by the Patron (it appears to be about 1%), the primary school document does not specify what the contribution is, if any. There is a vague mention in other documents of the Church having provided land, but so did private benefactors (who are not patrons), as well as parental and state contributions. And of course the Church land was gifted to it in the first place by individuals and church offertories. I suppose we should really allocate these as contributions by God rather than the Church.

robindch wrote: »

It's also well-known that the church used to organize collections for school lands and the like. And having collected sufficient cash, the church then bought the land and gave it to whatever trust was set up to acquire it.

I'm not aware of any land which was donated by the church in the sense of "donate" which the rest of us understand, though I'm sure it happened from time to time.

and I'll happily state unequivocally that I assuredly am implying no sense other that what is evident in the quotes.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am not resistant to secular schooling for those parents who would want that model of education for their children. I am resistant to the idea that it should be the only model offered to all parents for their children. I do not regard the arguments for offering alternative models of education actually are intellectually limited, particularly when there is an overwhelming body of empirical evidence which suggests that other models of education are certainly as viable as the model that you're putting forward. It appears a more tailored approach to education is the way forward, rather than the intellectually limited 'one size fits all' approach.

While I agree with this sentiment in theory, in practise economies of scale make it largely unworkable in an increasingly diverse society. As a society we can realistically only fund and maintain a certain number of schools per head of population. As such any school should be able to accommodate any student without trampling all over their religious beliefs or lack thereof. This is currently not the case for most people who do not want their children educated with an incompatible attendant religious ethos. Making religious instruction a free extra-curricular activity would seem like the simple solution to this problem. Cynically, I suspect the reason strongly religious types reject this is that were religious instruction optional I'd imagine attendance rates would drop to match church attendance rates which in turn would expose exactly how religious a society Ireland current is or is not.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

While I agree with this sentiment in theory, in practise economies of scale make it largely unworkable in an increasingly diverse society. As a society we can realistically only fund and maintain a certain number of schools per head of population.

That seems like a reasonable statement, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Yes there's a limit to the number of schools we have, but it's entirely arbitrary to say that as such any school should be able to do anything other than provide the minimum required education.

smacl wrote: »

As such any school should be able to accommodate any student without trampling all over their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Why? There is a plethora of expectations parents have of schools; subject preferences, accommodation of learning abilities, sporting excellence, extra curricular endeavours, existing friendships, commute times, even ethos. It's immediately obvious that any school simply cant fulfil every parents preferences in every regard, so aren't you just demanding your own philosophical preference be prioritised? You might as well say as such any school should be able to accommodate any student without trampling all over their dedication to rugby or lack thereof.

Economies of scale make it entirely unworkable to provide every parent with everything they want for their child in every school there is, sure. That's not an argument for less choice in schools though, it's an argument for more. The more patrons providing education there are, the more chance there is of a student finding a school that accommodates them without trampling on their whatever....

Samaris

Of course I'm talking about modern times, it is in modern times that there is a problem, it is in modern times that we need solutions. Why would you expect me to talk about 1770 (to pick a year at random)?