School patronage

Delirium

Obliq wrote: »

Thank you SW.

no problem. I don't have kids and am dreading the BS to wade through should I ever have kids with regards to schooling.

The "I'm alright, Jack" attitude some folk have is frustrating to read/hear.

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

I will ask the simple question, which I started.

Would you have any issue with a Majority, who seek to keep the status quo (who are also tax payers) and wish to continue enjoying their Constitutional Rights (education and religious education) ,

being forced to pander (despite wining the vote) to the minority (the secularists and Anti Catholic/other groups), who despite having other avenues (eg school within 1 - 1 1/2 hours)

You see no problem with that "discrimination".

"Unfair", Lol

Here's the thing Walrus - our Constitutional Rights are being denied to us due to the exemption given to Catholicism in terms of education. Not only towards non-religious/other religious kids, but also teachers who don't suit the Catholic definition of acceptable employees. These practices clearly are unconstitutional in what are deemed public schools. So the majority, I'm sure, would agree that our constitutional rights should be upheld by the status quo, not denied. This should be easy for you to understand.

Why don't you tell me how you can call a school "public" and avail of public tax money whilst discriminating on religious grounds? The constitution is quite clear on our rights, we don't need a majority to say it's not being upheld.

Obliq

SW wrote: »

no problem. I don't have kids and am dreading the BS to wade through should I ever have kids with regards to schooling.

The "I'm alright, Jack" attitude some folk have is frustrating to read/hear.

Cheers. Yeah, and the "so you should be alright, or you're a drain on society" attitude is worse, when the standard is patently unachievable. We do our best and struggle on, eh?!

Dades

walrusgumble, your understanding of democracy to mean that the majority get to do whatever they want regardless of any minority is somewhat 'schoolyard'.

Do you think we should do away with taxpayer-funded provisions for disabled people too, seeing as they're in a minority?

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

I will ask the simple question, which I started.

Would you have any issue with a Majority, who seek to keep the status quo (who are also tax payers) and wish to continue enjoying their Constitutional Rights (education and religious education) ,

being forced to pander (despite wining the vote) to the minority (the secularists and Anti Catholic/other groups), who despite having other avenues (eg school within 1 - 1 1/2 hours)

You see no problem with that "discrimination".

"Unfair", Lol

So mob rule and screw the minorities?
Screw the problem of state financing church?

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

Link?

The problem is that the government has a public school system that gives priority to Catholic children. This is not acceptable in a modern democratic state.

So, you seriously going to deny that Quinn's vision , despite the media coverage, has not hit a rock? Oh lord

SW wrote: »

So all single parent teachers should be removed from schools, as well as homosexuals and non-Catholic teachers?

Catholic Church no longer, in practice, takes issue with single parents! What 1980's books are you reading?

Considering Il Papa is all love for the Gays now, that might be hard to remove them

Either way, I have no issue with it, if they don't meet the ethos of the school , whether Catholic /Muslim/Protestant/Jew

In reality, I don't personally, really, see how it effects them in their ability to teach children.

What do you care if the school sacks a teacher? So long as the replacement gives the child their needs .......

It is not like they (teachers) were unaware of what the criteria was before they started to practice as a teacher.

SW wrote: »

They're publicly funded schools, religious discrimination (as you have just supported) is just wrong.

Wrong? Says who? you?

It is lawful and accepted. I have no interest in your idea of what is "wrong" or not. Society, objectively, recognizes that this "discrimination" is acceptable

SW wrote: »

Centuries? The state hasn't existed for one!

Wow, bet you high fived yourself. Eh, in case you weren't aware, the Catholic Church and their schools, have been in existence. Many of the schools are even older than the State!!!

SW wrote: »

Actually it doesn't. The law specifically exempts the schools from equality legislation. Clearly protecting schools from being prosectuted for discrimination.

Eh, thus, accepts it can happen , within the context of the issue.

You wanna find the laws that support your argument. What laws does Damien the Gay have against the school ? (bar unfair dismissal , on other grounds)

SW wrote: »

Why should someone be required to travel 20km+ to get to school when there are schools in the town/village?

Because the said school does not cater for your political and social views , such views that you as the parent wish to pass down to your child, as is , your right. 20 km is no more than 30 minutes!!!! Kids have to travel 1 hour to secondary schools.......... I suppose you have a General Hospital within 2 minutes too?

Why, should these schools, if the majority choose to keep them, have to pander to you?

Lord Protestants must be laughing here, considering that they travel a fair bit to go to school.

SW wrote: »

By virtue of the religious monopoly on national schools. This is not the way to do things in a modern democracy.

You saying that there is no monopolies in a democratic State? LOL.

Pure nonsense.

Ask yourself, why does the religious monopoly still exist despite it now being cool to be anti church?

SW wrote: »

So what? Doesn't make it right. And no-one is pandering to me.

Long may that continue (if your side don't win the vote)

SW wrote: »

I'm suggesting all children be treated equally in schools. What a monster I am!! :rolleyes:

When it results in the majority actually being discriminated against........... by being forbidden to practice their faith in their schools, which were established by the said faith

In public schools, I definitely reject religious discrimination. Private schools can do as they like.

SW wrote: »

That's a job for parents and their respective church, not a public school.

The said parents have elected that the school takes care of that. So far, most parents have no objected to it, bar a small minority.

SW wrote: »

You're in favour of discrimination as long as the majority agree with it. Bravo for being one of the herd.

The herd? WTF?

First a start, I lead, I don't follow!

Eh, no. I am just sick and tired of your nation being dictated by minorities! Put up or shut up or just start yer own schools. Simple as that.


So, essentially your message is this

All are equal, but if I don't get my way, I scream "discrimination" and "inequality" . Fair enough, shame you did not just state that earlier and we would not have to waste time.

Turtwig

Hey!

I got an idea! Why not retract all state benefits and supports for the minority group of people with disabilities!?

walrusgumble

Nodin wrote: »

So mob rule and screw the minorities?
Screw the problem of state financing church?

What mob rule? Imagining things are we?

So General Election and Constitutional Referendums are mob rule? rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooooggggggght

Who is stopping the minority from setting up their own schools?

Educate Together have done it. The Protestants still are going strong

Children are getting good education, what do you care where it comes from, whether Catholic or Protestant?

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

Lord Protestants must be laughing here, considering that they travel a fair bit to go to school.


........

They have to travel a "fair bit of distance" because of the religious ethos of what are supposedly state schools.

walrusgumble

Turtwig wrote: »

Hey!

I got an idea! Why not retract all state benefits and supports for the minority group of people with disabilities!?

What has that to do with this topic?

Which majority group are they pandering too?

Go back to bed

walrusgumble

Nodin wrote: »

They have to travel a "fair bit of distance" because of the religious ethos of what are supposedly state schools.

For a start, karma is a bitch for the Proddies

Secondly, Cry me a river!

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

What mob rule? Imagining things are we?

So General Election and Constitutional Referendums are mob rule? rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooooggggggght

Who is stopping the minority from setting up their own schools?

Educate Together have done it. The Protestants still are going strong

Children are getting good education, what do you care where it comes from, whether Catholic or Protestant?

"mob rule" refers to the notion of no protection of minority rights eg criminalising homosexuality, any minority religion etc.

You seem to be under some misunderstanding. The state funds "state" schools with a catholic ethos. As a result they have to give some funding to Protestant schools because the state schools are not neutral in terms of Religion.

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

For a start, karma is a bitch for the Proddies

Secondly, Cry me a river!

I'm sorry, but that seems to be some sectarian sentiment. Would you care to expand?

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

rrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiioooooooooooooggggggght

Ermahgerd, I suddenly have a much clearer picture of you.....

And yeah shur, what do the disabled minority have to do with anything, especially the ones who aren't RCC? Or the ones with special needs....I know they're hard going to get in the car in the first place, but the 2 hr drive would do them the world of good. The community wouldn't want to know them shur. Cos they're "that kind of people".

walrusgumble

Dades wrote: »

walrusgumble, your understanding of democracy to mean that the majority get to do whatever they want regardless of any minority is somewhat 'schoolyard'.

Do you think we should do away with taxpayer-funded provisions for disabled people too, seeing as they're in a minority?

Well done, you completely distort the discussion with irrelevant nonsense because you are incapable to putting a point across. Dishonest BS!

We are not talking about disability. We are not talking about all minorities

We are talking about people who want Religious Run Schools to Remain, or at least be given a choice to keep them vs Secularists and Anti Catholics and Bigots who demand non religious schools

I have stated twice, that I have no issue with the latter group, unless , they go out of their way to seek a complete removal of Religious owned schools, ignoring the wishes of others. Where a vote occurs, and the majority vote to keep status quo, I oppose the minority who seeks to reject this result and piss and moan about "mob rule and undemocratic" I would support their efforts to look for alternative avenues to suit their needs (we should be saying their children's but in reality , its all about them)

Your comments about interpretation of Democracy in this context and to what I said, I utter laughable. Do yourself and favour and cease commenting , since you and context are alien.

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

no problem. I don't have kids and am dreading the BS to wade through should I ever have kids with regards to schooling.

The "I'm alright, Jack" attitude some folk have is frustrating to read/hear.

"I'm Alright Jack" Attitude?

Right, you have completely proven to me that you do not understand what was said and are completely alien to reality.

You just saw, supporter of religious owned schools, and froth in the mouth with usual mealy mouthy hippy clap trap.

Nothing Alright Jack attitude there young man!

walrusgumble

Obliq wrote: »

Here's the thing Walrus - our Constitutional Rights are being denied

Are they?

Bar vague waffle, state the specific Provision and case law

Where has the State refused to acknowledge and attempt to assist those who constitute a reasonable group, to establish their own schools. In fairness to Minister Quinn, that is not something that you can accuse him of.

Obliq wrote: »

to us due to the exemption given to Catholicism in terms of education.

Just Catholicism?

How does that prevent you from establishing a school similar to Educate Together if you can gather up sufficient numbers of like minded people?

Obliq wrote: »

Not only towards non-religious/other religious kids, but also teachers who don't suit the Catholic definition of acceptable employees.

If it is a Catholic Owned school, they really don't have much obligation to the said people. Just like any other club.

The excuses are wearing thin, as there are more options available today , and hopefully more to follow.

Out of interest, how many non religious schools around the world, have and do employ gays?

Obliq wrote: »

These practices clearly are unconstitutional

Clearly? Eh, no! Clearly not.In fact, the Equality laws went through Constitutional Scrutiny before they were enacted via President's referral.

You are now welcome to provide evidence to support your argument. Real evidence. Your opinion does not cut muster

Obliq wrote: »

in what are deemed public schools

I think they are actually called National Schools.

Yet to see a sign saying "public school"

Obliq wrote: »

. So the majority, I'm sure, would agree that our constitutional rights should be upheld by the status quo, not denied. This should be easy for you to understand.

Eh, NO ONE rejects your right to be able to find a school more suitable for your child. But , when you start interfering with other people's rights to a child going to a Catholic School, then there are problems, and you ain't gonna win unless they too agree to end such status! Just to remind you, many people's Constitutional Rights clash with each other

Obliq wrote: »

Why don't you tell me how you can call a school "public"

Who said that I did call a school public. Find the post where I did. You said it

Obliq wrote: »

and avail of public tax money whilst discriminating on religious grounds?

Eh, when legislation writing by the State, and not the Church, acknowledges that some "discrimination" is acceptable .

Few groups (not just the schools) in this Country would fall foul equality laws where it would serious damage the integrity of their aims or ethos.

Obliq wrote: »

The constitution is quite clear on our rights, we don't need a majority to say it's not being upheld.

So, far, you have failed, completely, to state the Constitutional Provisions. (but, ya, minorities do have Constitutional Rights - but stick to the context of the discussion)

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

Well done,(..........)context are alien.

If you'd be good enough to get back to me. Thanks.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90262559&postcount=1034

Turtwig

walrusgumble wrote: »

What has that to do with this topic?

Which majority group are they pandering too?

Go back to bed

It's a comparison. If I compare a volcano to a geyser it does not mean I'm saying they both spout water. There are many different modes and structures to comparisons.

Disability groups are a minoirty. What you're advocating is tyranny of a majority. It's entirely relevant. If this country were majority white - and racist- and children of non white skin had to go their own schools we'd be racist discriminatory pigs. Yet, that's not all too dissimilar to what happens to people in Ireland of different faiths and no faith at all. Farcical really.

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, you seriously going to deny that Quinn's vision , despite the media coverage, has not hit a rock? Oh lord

You said polls have swung against secularist schools. I asked for a link. Could it be that you don't have any proof to back up your claim?

Catholic Church no longer, in practice, takes issue with single parents! What 1980's books are you reading?

So it's not against Catholic teaching to have sex outside of marriage? Does the pope know this?

Considering Il Papa is all love for the Gays now, that might be hard to remove them

Just as long as they remain celibate for life.

Either way, I have no issue with it, if they don't meet the ethos of the school , whether Catholic /Muslim/Protestant/Jew

In reality, I don't personally, really, see how it effects them in their ability to teach children.

What do you care if the school sacks a teacher? So long as the replacement gives the child their needs .......

It is not like they (teachers) were unaware of what the criteria was before they started to practice as a teacher.

Yeah, what was the teacher thinking. It's not as if the RCC are patrons of 95% of schools:rolleyes:

Wrong? Says who? you?

It is lawful and accepted. I have no interest in your idea of what is "wrong" or not. Society, objectively, recognizes that this "discrimination" is acceptable

Accepted by those who want the religious discrimination to remain. If they were on the receiving end of it, they'd soon change their tune.

Wow, bet you high fived yourself. Eh, in case you weren't aware, the Catholic Church and their schools, have been in existence. Many of the schools are even older than the State!!!

So what? we're talking about public schools funded by the state.

Eh, thus, accepts it can happen , within the context of the issue.

You wanna find the laws that support your argument. What laws does Damien the Gay have against the school ? (bar unfair dismissal , on other grounds)

My point is that the law is enabling the discrimination rather than prohibiting it.

Because the said school does not cater for your political and social views , such views that you as the parent wish to pass down to your child, as is , your right. 20 km is no more than 30 minutes!!!! Kids have to travel 1 hour to secondary schools.......... I suppose you have a General Hospital within 2 minutes too?

Wrong. I don't want my political or social views being pushed on students. I want a secular school system that treats all kids equally.

Why, should these schools, if the majority choose to keep them, have to pander to you?

Never suggested they should pander to anyone.

Lord Protestants must be laughing here, considering that they travel a fair bit to go to school.

"Well these guys we're discriminating against seem okay with it!" :rolleyes:

You saying that there is no monopolies in a democratic State? LOL.

Nope.

Pure nonsense.

Ask yourself, why does the religious monopoly still exist despite it now being cool to be anti church?

Because the government won't get off their asses and implement change that the majority desire.

Long may that continue (if your side don't win the vote)

Unlikely that it will. Diversity will push the discrimination out of the schools.

When it results in the majority actually being discriminated against........... by being forbidden to practice their faith in their schools, which were established by the said faith

Go to church if you want ot pray. School should be inclusive of all that want to learn.

The said parents have elected that the school takes care of that. So far, most parents have no objected to it, bar a small minority.

Wrong. Most parents are stuck with whatever school is their local one.

The herd? WTF?

First a start, I lead, I don't follow!

Eh, no. I am just sick and tired of your nation being dictated by minorities! Put up or shut up or just start yer own schools. Simple as that.

Why? My taxes pay for schools to be built and teachers to staff them. Why should non-Catholics be required to build private schools?

So, essentially your message is this

All are equal, but if I don't get my way, I scream "discrimination" and "inequality" . Fair enough, shame you did not just state that earlier and we would not have to waste time.

Not my problem you don't understand what discrimination is. If people are discriminated against then they're not equal. It's really simple if you give it a moments thought

robindch

Walrus, you have been red-carded for continuing unhelpfulness. Any more frothing from you and you'll be banned.

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

"I'm Alright Jack" Attitude?

Right, you have completely proven to me that you do not understand what was said and are completely alien to reality.

You just saw, supporter of religious owned schools, and froth in the mouth with usual mealy mouthy hippy clap trap.

Nothing Alright Jack attitude there young man!

You've told people to go build new schools rather than accept an inclusive school system. You're looking after yourself and sod the rest. Very much "I'm alright, Jack" sadly.

Brian Shanahan

walrusgumble wrote: »

1. Tax payers funds are not a patch on what it costs to run the school, and what was spent over the decades / centuries

National schools, the vast majority of schools in the state, were set up, built, maintained, funded and salaries paid by the British state between the 1830's and the end of the War of Indepenendence. And after the war the Irish state took over the reigns. Even before the national school system was set up, most schools were funded through government monies, for example my primary school Nicker NS in Pallasgreen Co. Limerick existed before the national school system as a catholic owned school, but the only funding it ever received was from the state, either British or later Irish.

If you think the churches have ever paid a single penny towards our national school system, then you really need to stop listening to the far right propoganda of publications like ALIVE! and read some history, written by real historians who have actually researched the topic.

Oh and please stop repeating this lie.

walrusgumble

Turtwig wrote: »

It's a comparison.

It is of no comparison. It is switching the goal posts actually. Distortion.

Turtwig wrote: »

If I compare a volcano to a geyser

They are a lot more similar than what we are discussing here.

I can not think of anyone who would take issue with funding schools with disability needs. I don't object to funding non religious schools either.

The comments made by posters, to which I reply to concern people who have no issue with rejecting a finding of a majority group, if asked and support , the retention of religious run schools. They talk about discrimination and other nonsensical issues but ignore the discrimination towards the majority.

Turtwig wrote: »

it does not mean I'm saying they both spout water. There are many different modes and structures to comparisons.

Give yourself a pat on the back for such a clever statement. But, alas , no

Context dear boy, context

Turtwig wrote: »

Disability groups are a minority. What you're advocating is tyranny of a majority.

ARE YOU FOR REAL? HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT WAS ACTUALLY STATED, DO YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMENTS.?

Clearly not!

Has the discussion gone over your head?

Evidently Yes

Your inability to deal with what was said, your ability to distort what was said is defamatory

Turtwig wrote: »

It's entirely relevant.

No. Wasting my time with you lad!

Turtwig wrote: »

If this country were majority white - and racist- and children of non white skin had to go their own schools we'd be racist discriminatory pigs. Yet, that's not all too dissimilar to what happens to people in Ireland of different faiths and no faith at all. Farcical really.

You do talk and awful lot of................ shame you don't understand the context of the discussion. A lot of defamatory comments being spouted there

What you suggest are illegal in the immediate above statement . I have not made any statement that actually suggests or supports illegal activities. You are suggesting that I support illegal activities.


In summary, I will recap the context

The comments made by posters, to which I reply to concern people who have no issue with rejecting a finding of a majority group, if asked and support , the retention of religious run schools. They talk about discrimination and other nonsensical issues but ignore the discrimination towards the majority.

Not content with getting their own schools,to suit their own needs, they want to get rid of the religious run schools, out of spite.

Brian Shanahan

Dades wrote: »

walrusgumble, your understanding of democracy to mean that the majority get to do whatever they want regardless of any minority is somewhat 'schoolyard'.

It's worse than that to be honest. Walrus is painting a minority, the religious catholics, as the majority due to the fact that some very badly designed surveys have given a faked impression that it is so, and is now pretending that this minority who have mistakenly been identified as the majority deserve more rights than the rest of us.

There is a name for said philosophy.

walrusgumble

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

National schools, the vast majority of schools in the state, were set up, built, maintained, funded and salaries paid by the British state between the 1830's and the end of the War of Indepenendence. And after the war the Irish state took over the reigns. Even before the national school system was set up, most schools were funded through government monies, for example my primary school Nicker NS in Pallasgreen Co. Limerick existed before the national school system as a catholic owned school, but the only funding it ever received was from the state, either British or later Irish.

If you think the churches have ever paid a single penny towards our national school system, then you really need to stop listening to the far right propoganda of publications like ALIVE! and read some history, written by real historians who have actually researched the topic.

Oh and please stop repeating this lie.

Who owns the land? State?

Who are the tax payers? Snow Fairies?

Suggesting that the Schools don't raise money via Church funds?

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

In summary, I will recap the context

The comments made by posters, to which I reply to concern people who have no issue with rejecting a finding of a majority group, if asked and support , the retention of religious run schools. They talk about discrimination and other nonsensical issues but ignore the discrimination towards the majority.

Not content with getting their own schools,to suit their own needs, they want to get rid of the religious run schools, out of spite.

Wrong on a number of counts. It has been show the majority don't favour a religious run public school system.

Secondly, no one is calling for schools to suit their own needs, rather they be more inclusive so as to reflect the diversity of the children of school-going age.

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

You are now welcome to provide evidence to support your argument. Real evidence. Your opinion does not cut muster

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/the_irish_education_system/constitution_and_education.html

Religion
This is the relevant part of Article 44:

2.2°: The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2.3°: The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

2.4°: Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Unfortunately, my children recieved no moral/religious instruction in their state funded school as there was no provision made for their beliefs during religion class. There was minimal supervision given, and sometimes I was even asked to facilitate the non-curricular religious activity by removing my child from their school. Suck it up, as you say, does not cut it at all.

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

It is of no comparison. (.............)out of spite.

For a start, karma is a bitch for the Proddies

Secondly, Cry me a river!

I'm sorry, but that seems to be some sectarian sentiment. Would you care to expand?

Would you care to revert to me re this? (not in a private message thanks)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90262559&postcount=1034

walrusgumble

robindch wrote: »

Walrus, you have been red-carded for continuing unhelpfulness. Any more frothing from you and you'll be banned.

Define unhelpfulness

Also, Despite sending me a private message, about being uncivil, and my request for you to point out the statement or word from that very quotation of mine that supports your view, you haven't done so.

You are aware of fair procedures aren't you?