School patronage

Dades

swampgas wrote: »

Lots of parents may be concerned about being able to drop off or pick up their kids at different times - it can be a scheduling nightmare with work and especially if there are multiple children and schools involved. They may say "No" for that reason rather than because they are in favour of school-based indoctrination.

Clearly though it's just an option. Kids could stay in class if their parent/relative/minder couldn't get there 45 minutes early. Would put the onus on parents who feel strongly about this to organise a way. (Not that they should have to...)

I think it's a fantastic idea. A totally reasonable compromise that will probably be shot down by the church who know that this option offers children an ordered escape from its indoctrination. They'll claim it will make children want to not learn religion - and they'll have a tough job selling it to them in later life. And of course the last class of the day is the slippery slope to outside of school hours completely (fingers crossed!)

Obviously this idea should only be relevant for catholic class. If there was a generic all-religions class in schools there wouldn't be a problem.

Great idea though. Amazed that almost half on The Journal think otherwise.

Penn

I think the objection comes from time during the school day spent on religion, and unless religion was taught every day, the child's timetable would be all over the place. Get off early some days of the week but not others?

I agree it's a good idea in theory, and a great compromise the church would have to be very petty to argue with. I think it needs a bit of tinkering with though. Make sure that there's still provisions for the children not partaking in the class to be able to do their own work supervised if they still have to stay in school to wait for a bus or something.

Dades

Just on that poll - what is with the wording? Was it written by the Iona Institute to subliminally make out that this is people dodging something they should be attending?

Should children be allowed to go home early to avoid religion class?

How about:

In catholic schools, should religion classes be moved to the end of the school day to allow children of other faiths (or none) to leave early?

Dades

Penn wrote: »

I think the objection comes from time during the school day spent on religion, and unless religion was taught every day, the child's timetable would be all over the place. Get off early some days of the week but not others?

Anyone with kids in school knows that a big calender is a must for knowing who's finished when and going to whose house and doing what after school activity. One more scheduled option into the mix won't make too much difference.

Penn wrote: »

Make sure that there's still provisions for the children not partaking in the class to be able to do their own work supervised if they still have to stay in school to wait for a bus or something.

Isn't that the problem they have now, though? Schools don't have any staff or location where kids can do this so they're stuck in the back of the indoctrination room?

lazygal

Ethos implies the faith is infused throughout the day and in all subjects. Like music and art done for religious purposes. Timetables won't solve that.

gaynorvader

Penn wrote: »

I think the objection comes from time during the school day spent on religion, and unless religion was taught every day, the child's timetable would be all over the place. Get off early some days of the week but not others?

I agree it's a good idea in theory, and a great compromise the church would have to be very petty to argue with. I think it needs a bit of tinkering with though. Make sure that there's still provisions for the children not partaking in the class to be able to do their own work supervised if they still have to stay in school to wait for a bus or something.

I remember most secondary school's getting half days on either Wednesdays or Fridays. Not sure what the issue is here.

Dades

lazygal wrote: »

Ethos implies the faith is infused throughout the day and in all subjects. Like music and art done for religious purposes. Timetables won't solve that.

The school will still be able to do its prayers and bell-ringing and whatnot - this just give the parents who don't want their children receiving blocks of RE an option. The church doesn't lose out any of its privileges.

lazygal

Dades wrote: »

The school will still be able to do its prayers and bell-ringing and whatnot - this just give the parents who don't want their children receiving blocks of RE an option. The church doesn't lose out any of its privileges.

But what if the music programme is preparing a choir to sing at communion ceremonies? Do you opt your child out of music too? Or art, when it'd be preparing stuff to decorate the church? Or the nativity play?

pauldla

Dades wrote: »

The school will still be able to do its prayers and bell-ringing and whatnot - this just give the parents who don't want their children receiving blocks of RE an option. The church doesn't lose out any of its privileges.

Apart from their unhindered access to young minds, that is. They'll fight this one tooth and nail, I'm sure.

Bring 'em on, I says.

Penn

Dades wrote: »

Anyone with kids in school knows that a big calender is a must for knowing who's finished when and going to whose house and doing what after school activity. One more scheduled option into the mix won't make too much difference.

It can to some people. Again, I'm not saying it's a huge obstacle to overcome, but in terms of why people on The Journal may be opposing it, it could be a factor.

Dades wrote: »

Isn't that the problem they have now, though? Schools don't have any staff or location where kids can do this so they're stuck in the back of the indoctrination room?

Yeah but (just thinking out loud) if for example religion class was at the end of the day, the teachers and rooms for junior/senior infants could be used as those children go home earlier than others anyway. Or roll a few of the classes (2nd & 3rd class, 4th & 5th class) into one religion class and free up teachers and rooms that way.

Again, in theory it's a great compromise and plan. I just think some more detail regarding some issues would get more people on board with it.

Dades

lazygal wrote: »

But what if the music programme is preparing a choir to sing at communion ceremonies? Do you opt your child out of music too? Or art, when it'd be preparing stuff to decorate the church? Or the nativity play?

What about em? This remains the non-catholic parents problem. Baby steps and all that. I'd suggest nativity plays and art (never remember doing religious pics) are insignificant in comparison to the blocks of RE in question here.

Do people have music class? I first learned guitar in senior school religion class. To get girls. :pac:

Penn wrote: »

It can to some people. Again, I'm not saying it's a huge obstacle to overcome, but in terms of why people on The Journal may be opposing it, it could be a factor.

Don't you just love it when people vote down something that's an optional advantage for other people. Allow gay marriage? But I don't want to marry a gay!

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Or... and this may be a bit of a shocker, perhaps we shouldn't indoctrinate children? Or, perhaps we should be a little more discriminating about the terms we throw around?

Sounds to me like you're deep into "it's not torture, because we're not the sort of people that torture, therefore it must be something else" territory, here.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/sacraments-catholic-church-school-patronage-ireland-1426806-Apr2014/

Have to agree with this fully,

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Fair enough, I guess you've no objection to the teaching of islam, judaism, & protestant christianity being paid for by the state?

Aside from being disingenuous nonsense on its face, this statement does raise the question, "what on earth does Absolam think Protestants believe?", given that a broad-brush summary of what all Christians believe seems to strike him as some sort of particularly anti-Catholic slur.

Penn

Dades wrote: »

Don't you just love it when people vote down something that's an optional advantage for other people. Allow gay marriage? But I don't want to marry a gay!

Obliq

The poll is at 52% yes now. The wording is terrible so we could add a few percent for those who didn't get the picture properly, but I think that's a bloody great result considering that most parents would realistically like to keep their kids in school till the usual closing time. Well, I would anyway...

I think it says a lot about how pee'd off parents are by religion taking up so much time, and the fact that the non-religious can't avoid it. I'd love to see a poll on the other journal article about the sacraments though.

PopePalpatine

Penn wrote: »

I think the objection comes from time during the school day spent on religion, and unless religion was taught every day, the child's timetable would be all over the place. Get off early some days of the week but not others?

I agree it's a good idea in theory, and a great compromise the church would have to be very petty to argue with.

The Ionanists are well used to pettiness.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Sounds to me like you're deep into "it's not torture, because we're not the sort of people that torture, therefore it must be something else" territory, here.

Hmm. That's a bit of a leap from "we shouldn't indoctrinate children", are you sure you're not just trying to find a handy pigeon hole? Anyway, if you're looking for someone advocating "it's ok if you're doing it for the right reasons", Gaynorvador is your pigeon, not me...

alaimacerc wrote: »

Aside from being disingenuous nonsense on its face, this statement does raise the question, "what on earth does Absolam think Protestants believe?", given that a broad-brush summary of what all Christians believe seems to strike him as some sort of particularly anti-Catholic slur.

With all credit due to grandstanding, it was a question, not a statement. Is it disingenuous to ask a question now? Or perhaps just questions you don't like are disingenuous nonsense on their face? Since we're throwing questions out, Just how much does Alaimacerc know about non Catholic Christian faiths? Since what you think was a broad brush summary of what all Christians believe contains at least two elements that are unacceptable to a number of Christian faiths? Not that I said this was an anti-Catholic slur, I think you may have made that up in your excitement?
My point was that Cantremember seems to think we are arguing about the state paying to have children taught catholic dogma, whilst ignoring the fact that in the same fashion the state can also be said to be paying for children to be taught Muslim, Jewish and Protestant dogma.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. That's a bit of a leap from "we shouldn't indoctrinate children", are you sure you're not just trying to find a handy pigeon hole? Anyway, if you're looking for someone advocating "it's ok if you're doing it for the right reasons", Gaynorvador is your pigeon, not me...

No, you're the person flying the kite marked "Why, teaching religious doctrine as fact? That's hardly indoctrination! All that secular 'teaching practical and theoretical subject knowledge', though, it's shameless indoctrination!" To wit, you're defending indoctrination, and covering doing so with relabelling, hand-waving relativism, and false equivalences.

With all credit due to grandstanding, it was a question, not a statement. Is it disingenuous to ask a question now? Or perhaps just questions you don't like are disingenuous nonsense on their face? Since we're throwing questions out, Just how much does Alaimacerc know about non Catholic Christian faiths? Since what you think was a broad brush summary of what all Christians believe contains at least two elements that are unacceptable to a number of Christian faiths? Not that I said this was an anti-Catholic slur, I think you may have made that up in your excitement?

I think you're mistaking "sheer exasperation at your tomfoolery" for what you're diagnosing as "grandstanding" and "excitement". No, it was a statement, bracketed with "I guess" and a question mark. I guess we can all play that game, throw whatever implausible canards we like, and fall back on "I was only asking a question!", but it would make for a very tedious discussion? It might be because your deep in "enemy territory" in the A&A forum, or perhaps it's just your frustrated inner Jesuit, but you seem to spend a tremendous amount of your posts try to establish this sort of rhetorical line of retreat, and very little of them saying anything in material response.

"All" is a necessarily fuzzy concept since we'd first have to agree who "all" Christians were. Sure, there'd be stuff in there that some self-describers would resile from, but I hardly think that "indoctrination in our schools" by modalists, Mormons, other non-trins and people with wacky takes on penal sacrifice are especially pressing (with all apologies to the LDS mission church up the road from my house and the Unitarians in town).

My point was that Cantremember seems to think we are arguing about the state paying to have children taught catholic dogma, whilst ignoring the fact that in the same fashion the state can also be said to be paying for children to be taught Muslim, Jewish and Protestant dogma.

That didn't "seem" to be the case at all. It was a wholesale presumption on your part, and if not indeed disingenuous, then a very rash and unsupported one.

If someone makes a call for secularism in education and colours that with an irreverent (i.e., lacking the po-faced obscurantism they themselves would use) characterisation of the largest denomination or three perpetrating the present mess, I see very little basis for going off on an "OMG anticatholicism!" sidetrack, and am very disinclined to entertain it while you try one of your filibusters. And yet the popularity of people doing so shows little sign of abating.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, you're the person flying the kite marked "Why, teaching religious doctrine as fact? That's hardly indoctrination!

I am? I must have missed that post. Perhaps you can quote it? Or perhaps you're just making up the argument you think you can best defend against, and ascribing it to me.

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, it was a statement, bracketed with "I guess" and a question mark.

And a question mark at the end of a sentence denotes what exactly? Yes, a question. I know you'd rather it were a statement, but really, English isn't going to change just to suit your argument.

alaimacerc wrote: »

"All" is a necessarily fuzzy concept since we'd first have to agree who "all" Christians were.

Sorry, so 'all' doesn't mean 'all' now either? Are we to argue in a new version of English only you are privy to understanding? When you say 'what all Christians believe' (and it was you emphasising the 'all' in your statement) we should really take that to mean 'what some Christians believe'? But if all actually means some, then surely it was correct to point out that Cantremember was omitting Protestant faiths as well as Muslim and Judaic from his statement?

alaimacerc wrote: »

That didn't "seem" to be the case at all. It was a wholesale presumption on your part, and if not indeed disingenuous, then a very rash and unsupported one.

Didn't it? Did all of the attributes he described apply to Islam? Or Judaism? Or all (using the wholly inclusive rather than partially exclusive necessarily fuzzy definition of 'all') Christian faiths? It seems not. Did all of the attributes he specified apply to Catholic dogma? And did he specify that this is what the state is paying for children to be taught, and that is what we are arguing about? I'm pretty sure I haven't presumed any of that, it's all in his post. I can quote it if you like?

alaimacerc wrote: »

If someone makes a call for secularism in education and colours that with an irreverent characterisation I see very little basis for going off on an "OMG anticatholicism!" sidetrack

So, just to link back...Cantremembers post I don't actually see a call for secularism there? The 'colour' seems to be the majority of the post, and it is remarkably pointed in all fairness. Anyways, I didn't go off on an 'OMG anticatholicism sidetrack', I'm simply wondering why he wouldn't want to include other religious educators in the discussion, since he deliberately excluded them from what we are arguing about.

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. That's a bit of a leap from "we shouldn't indoctrinate children", are you sure you're not just trying to find a handy pigeon hole? Anyway, if you're looking for someone advocating "it's ok if you're doing it for the right reasons", Gaynorvador is your pigeon, not me...

{...}

I'm no one's pigeon!

Also, not what I said. I said if all parents are fine with the indoctrination given to children, it's fine. Indoctrination at Sunday school, for instance, is totally okay. However, forcing indoctrination on children against their parents' wishes is what's wrong.
There is a big difference between religious indoctrination and maths/physics indoctrination in that you can demonstrate the veracity of the latter when the child has the mental tools to do so.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I am? I must have missed that post. Perhaps you can quote it? Or perhaps you're just making up the argument you think you can best defend against, and ascribing it to me.

I think you need to cast your mind back a little harder. And spare me the "link please!" caltrop-throwing exercise, if you would. You've repeatedly sought to minimise the "instruction and formation" aspects, including by the Alice-in-Wonderland tactic of well, if the kids don't believe all the impossible things we tell them to, and aren't able to bandy theology with a Vatican flying squad, it proves how liberal and light-touch ethos RE is anyway.

And a question mark at the end of a sentence denotes what exactly?

In the case mentioned, a very implausible stab at plausible deniability. I guess?

Sorry, so 'all' doesn't mean 'all' now either? Are we to argue in a new version of English only you are privy to understanding? When you say 'what all Christians believe' (and it was you emphasising the 'all' in your statement) we should really take that to mean 'what some Christians believe'?

Good grief. If you really are worried about the non-trins and so forth, let's just take a leaf out of the churches and their "no common baptism for you!" approach, and regard them as effectively non-Christian. Is there in any case any Protestant denom actually running a school in this category you're complaining about? Because if not, your complaints about failure to complain about and satirise everyone else on a spuriously equal basis as the Catholics (and most of the Prods, AFAICS) is even more fanciful than it would be otherwise. Which is already "very".

But if all actually means some, then surely it was correct to point out that Cantremember was omitting Protestant faiths as well as Muslim and Judaic from his statement?

No, because even if your statement was "correct" on the bare facts asserted (which you've yet to demonstrate), then it doesn't follow it "was correct to point it out", since this additionally asserts (with additional lack of proof) that there's some purpose to making the statement, and a validity to throwing it out in this context.

Anyways, I didn't go off on an 'OMG anticatholicism sidetrack', I'm simply wondering why he wouldn't want to include other religious educators in the discussion, since he deliberately excluded them from what we are arguing about.

I ain't hearing the difference.

Again, I think you're misinterpreting "exemplification" as "exclusion". When 90% of the poison arrow is marked "Property of the Vatican", I think one is allowed the occasional "ow, Catholicism, that smarts" without it being assumed one is Paisley III. Or since it was largely-if-not-entirely equally-Protestant-scoffing, a Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist version of same, I suppose.

Do you honestly think that people posting on the A&A forum, complaining about religious patronage in schools are merely concerned with Catholic patronage, unless they add a "other denominations are available, please stand by while I compose an 'equal time' commentary on each of those, too"? Or is it merely rhetorically convent to allude to this possibility so as to throw a broomhandle into the spokes of the discussion? (I suspect I could practically write the "I never said... I wouldn't presume... You'll never touch me for it, copper..." dancing around the topic we'll now get in response to this now.)

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you need to cast your mind back a little harder. And spare me the "link please!" caltrop-throwing exercise, if you would.

Why would I? If you're so happy to tell me what I said, surely you can point out when I said it? Or perhaps your understanding transcends mere words, and you know what I really meant to say, and simply failed to write?

alaimacerc wrote: »

You've repeatedly sought to minimise the "instruction and formation" aspects, including by the Alice-in-Wonderland tactic of well, if the kids don't believe all the impossible things we tell them to, and aren't able to bandy theology with a Vatican flying squad, it proves how liberal and light-touch ethos RE is anyway.

Well if I've repeatedly done it, you'll definitely find it easy to quote those repetitions. Unless, of course, you're making that up too? Seems to be becoming a theme; you tell me what I'm saying, then dismiss it. I suppose it's one way to win an argument.

alaimacerc wrote: »

In the case mentioned, a very implausible stab at plausible deniability. I guess?

So, when I asked a question, I was making a poor attempt to plausibly deny I was making a statement? Surely saying nothing would have been even more deniable? That way I could not say anything I wanted and get away scot free.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Good grief. If you really are worried about the non-trins and so forth, let's just take a leaf out of the churches and their "no common baptism for you!" approach, and regard them as effectively non-Christian.

Effectively, or actually? Are you looking to rule them out of your fuzzy 'all', or out of the real world 'all'? Why would I want to do either? If they say they're Christians, why should I (or you) say different? If I were to agree that Christians are actually non-Christians, wouldn't I be defeating my point that they're Christians? I can't see why I'd want to do that. Good grief, no, that doesn't make sense.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is there in any case any Protestant denom actually running a school in this category you're complaining about?

I didn't complain about them at all. If you recall you said "this statement does raise the question, "what on earth does Absolam think Protestants believe?", given that a broad-brush summary of what all Christians believe seems to strike him as some sort of particularly anti-Catholic slur.", all I said was that your definition of what all Christians believe excludes a number of Christian faiths. I've nothing against them; you're the one excluding them from all Christians. You could admit you're wrong, and accept that Camtremember excluded them from his diatribe, and that you leapt to attack my understanding of Protestantism without thinking, or you can keep wriggling on your own hook, and try to exclude Christians from all Christianity, or try to say they're not very important parts of Christianity, or there aren't any of those ones running schools, but I think you're stuck.

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, because even if your statement was "correct" on the bare facts asserted (which you've yet to demonstrate),

Hmm. The bare facts asserted were that the broad brush summary of what all Christians believe contains at least two elements that are unacceptable to a number of Christian faiths. I think that your own leaping to redefine 'all' as 'some' followed by your derogations for "modalists, Mormons, other non-trins and people with wacky takes on penal sacrifice with all apologies to the LDS mission church up the road from my house and the Unitarians in town" pretty much demonstrates you know my statement was correct, but you appear reluctant to admit it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

then it doesn't follow it "was correct to point it out", since this additionally asserts (with additional lack of proof) that there's some purpose to making the statement, and a validity to throwing it out in this context.

Exactly where was the additional assertion? I didn't make an additional assertion at the time, but here's one now; I assert the purpose of making the statement that Cantremember was omitting Protestant faiths as well as Muslim and Judaic from his statement, was to point out that Cantremember was omitting Muslim, Judaic, and Christian Protestant faiths from his statement. This observation is valid in the context of Cantremembers post, which omitted Muslim, Judaic, and Christian Protestant faiths.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I ain't hearing the difference.

Allow me to help.
Had I said "Fair enough, I guess your objection is specifically to the teaching of catholicism being paid for by the state? Good to know we're arguing about that.", I might reasonably be thought to be considering Cantremember to be engaged in an anticatholic sidetrack. The OMG I'm afraid would still be an unreasonable addition. However, I actually said "Fair enough, I guess you've no objection to the teaching of islam, judaism, & protestant christianity being paid for by the state? Good to know we're not arguing about that.", which might reasonably be considered to be asking Cantremember why he didn't feel we were arguing about other religious education programmes in schools. I hope that helps you 'hear the difference'.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Again, I think you're misinterpreting "exemplification" as "exclusion". When 90% of the poison arrow is marked "Property of the Vatican", I think one is allowed the occasional "ow, Catholicism, that smarts" without it being assumed one is Paisley III. Or since it was largely-if-not-entirely equally-Protestant-scoffing, a Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist version of same, I suppose.

I don't recall Cantremember saying he was exemplifying anything? He seemed to be specifically listing the things he thought we were arguing about (he said "Here's the thing, this is what the state is paying to have children taught:
{.list.}That is what we are arguing about."). If the points were intended as exemplifications, they weren't exemplifying beliefs that belong to Islam, Judaism, or all Christian faiths, so even in exemplification, they excluded those religions.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Do you honestly think that people posting on the A&A forum, complaining about religious patronage in schools are merely concerned with Catholic patronage, unless they add a "other denominations are available, please stand by while I compose an 'equal time' commentary on each of those, too"?

Instead of assuming what posters think, I prefer to just go by what they say. It helps to avoid misunderstandings.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Or is it merely rhetorically convent to allude to this possibility so as to throw a broomhandle into the spokes of the discussion? (I suspect I could practically write the "I never said... I wouldn't presume... You'll never touch me for it, copper..." dancing around the topic we'll now get in response to this now.)

Maybe you can practically write it because you wrote an argument for me, then your rebuttal, so writing an answer to that isn't difficult? Obviously responding to what I actually say poses greater difficulties (not much when you can redefine 'all' as 'some', but still, difficulties), but it's probably more entertaining in the long run.

Dades

Well this has developed into the worst thread ever.

Any chance you two could put each other on ignore?

Banbh

At the risk of returning to the subject of the thread, has anyone a link to what Ruairi Quinn said about school patronage at the teachers' conferences?
The media coverage was quickly sidelined into the behaviour of some teachers and the issue was abandoned but I think he said he was going to put religion at the end of the school day.
If he does, that will be a major victory for us non-religious parents. Imagine a class where the two or three non-religious kids get to go home early!

Delirium

Banbh wrote: »

At the risk of returning to the subject of the thread, has anyone a link to what Ruairi Quinn said about school patronage at the teachers' conferences?
The media coverage was quickly sidelined into the behaviour of some teachers and the issue was abandoned but I think he said he was going to put religion at the end of the school day.
If he does, that will be a major victory for us non-religious parents. Imagine a class where the two or three non-religious kids get to go home early!

Here you go

Primary school timetables could be arranged to make it easier for children to avoid religion classes under options being considered by Education Minister Ruairi Quinn.

Religion classes would be at the beginning or the end of the school day so that children who are not involved don't feel excluded.

This would avoid a situation where a child was excluded from a class midway through the school day, and made to feel different.

It would also avoid the teaching of religion against parents' wishes because the school had no way of supervising the pupil outside the class.

Full article

Banbh

Thanks for link. It appears to be based on the script of his talk for the INTO conference which I presume was delivered.
As I read it, the idea is not yet a proposal and may be included in a future White Paper. So it seems we are as far away as ever from getting anything done.
With the downright refusal of the Catholic Church to concede an inch on patronage, despite the remarks of their Dublin leader, I think putting religion at the start or end of the school day is the way to go.
As his time in office runs out, is there any pressure we could apply to Minister Quinn to put this idea into practice?

recedite

Quinn made a similar style of "suggestion" at the last teacher conference when he suggested re-allocating some time from religion to core subjects like maths.
I'm not sure why he keeps dropping these hints, or if its of any benefit. On the one hand, it might serve to get the general public used to the idea.
On the other hand, it fuels the persecution mentality among those religious who are actually getting away with imposing their religion on others.
Either way, he is not daring enough to use his power as the Minister for Education to actually implement something. Anyone can make these kind of suggestions, and be ignored, just as he is doing.

Banbh

The minister said he did not believe "that we should be overly prescriptive in working towards a white paper on inclusive schools", but thought that there could be more flexibility in timetabling for religion.

It's about as watery as you can get short of saying 'not an inch'.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

Quinn made a similar style of "suggestion" at the last teacher conference when he suggested re-allocating some time from religion to core subjects like maths.
I'm not sure why he keeps dropping these hints, or if its of any benefit. On the one hand, it might serve to get the general public used to the idea.

It's the Labour party's version of prayer. They want to be seen to be looking to be doing something vaguely left wing, but they don't want to actually do anything vaguely left wing for fear of jepordising their promised future directorships, so they come out with these soundbites every so often. If you look at Ruadhri's whole career it is a whole series of these kinds of "ideas" with nothing concrete ever being done.

On the other hand, it fuels the persecution mentality among those religious who are actually getting away with imposing their religion on others.
Either way, he is not daring enough to use his power as the Minister for Education to actually implement something. Anyone can make these kind of suggestions, and be ignored, just as he is doing.

Oh noes, those with power and privilege may have to give up a little of their power and privilege to make a more equal society. You know, there are some days when I think a bloody revolution might not be such a bad thing after all.