School patronage

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

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

I'd really like to hear how the Prods deserve some kind of "karma" too, albeit this is A&A where "karma" is not a real thing......

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

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.

I have said that IN THE EVENT

that a decision was made by a majority , who wish to retain status quo. The same applies (to the minority - ie status quo) where the Majority happen to be those who support change

You are prepared to ignore the actual Constitutional wishes of those who seek to continue their education in the manner that the State currently provides. Education is defined to include not only academic but also spiritual and religious

I support parental choice. Whether that mean a parent's choice to have a non religious school or a religious school. I do not support the majority's right from being attacked by a minority

In reality, while more is to be done, alot is happening for those non religious groups. Groups like Educate Together are shooting up around the country. Get in contact with them, I am sure, eventually, with a gathering of like minded people, a similar school could be established, somewhere between 3-20 miles (half hour) from your areas, or worse , 20-60 miles (again, only 1 hour)


You can not , and should not force "inclusivity" on others. Resentment only follows. What is so special to your ideals over another, and mine over other's?

TheChizler

walrusgumble wrote: »

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



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.




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

Context dear boy, context



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




No. Wasting my time with you lad!



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.

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

I have said that ,(........) and mine over other's?

walrusgrumble 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?

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

walrusgumble

TheChizler wrote: »

So, you are not going to actually deal with what was said?

Right, thought so

I prefer rope, me. What about you?

Doubt Southpark will be calling you either

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

I have said that IN THE EVENT

that a decision was made by a majority , who wish to retain status quo. The same applies (to the minority - ie status quo) where the Majority happen to be those who support change

No, the majority want change according to what polls I could find.

You are prepared to ignore the actual Constitutional wishes of those who seek to continue their education in the manner that the State currently provides. Education is defined to include not only academic but also spiritual and religious

And the government are ignoring the constitution by allowing religious discrimination in the public school system.

I support parental choice. Whether that mean a parent's choice to have a non religious school or a religious school. I do not support the majority's right from being attacked by a minority

What right is being attacked? the parents can raise the child as they see fit. It's not the states responsibility to have faith formation in the schools. The public system should be open and inclusive to all. The alternative is to have a vastly over-inflated number of schools in every town and village.

In reality, while more is to be done, alot is happening for those non religious groups. Groups like Educate Together are shooting up around the country. Get in contact with them, I am sure, eventually, with a gathering of like minded people, a similar school could be established, somewhere between 3-20 miles (half hour) from your areas, or worse , 20-60 miles (again, only 1 hour)

But more practical solution is to disallow religious discrimination and move faith formation to the start/end of the day. Easy solution that accomdates all and is an inclusive school model.

You can not , and should not force "inclusivity" on others. Resentment only follows. What is so special to your ideals over another, and mine over other's?

Why is a Catholics education worthier than a non-Catholics? Change isn't always easy, but that's no excuse to allow backwards policies to remain in the education system.

TheChizler

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, you are not going to actually deal with what was said?

Right, thought so

I prefer rope, me. What about you?

Doubt Southpark will be calling you either

I would but I feel the conversation wouldn't last long enough to get to know you better.

You're coming across, to me at least and I suspect several others, as incredibly abrasive, and I feel that you are not honestly or respectively debating in what we would consider a serious issue.

Also not my drawing, found it by googling 'suicide' and another word. Was going to use seppuku as the analogy but I couldn't find any tasteful pics. Edit: and that would imply dying with honour.

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

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.

Archbishop Martin acknowledged, rightly, the need for alternatives and CHOICE (which is all I advocate), with regard to opposition he noted the slow progress (hey this is Ireland, so no big deal) Don't be foolish to think that the "catholic communities" mentioned below, solely means the Church.

"OPPOSITION

He said in the Dublin area, with an increasing number of Educate Together and other schools, that the alternative was growing – "albeit far too slowly".

He said that opposition often came from within local Catholic communities but it can also come – as he said said to Education Minister Ruairi Quinn – from local political representatives, including some from the Labour Party.

Archbishop Martin said Catholic education had a vital place in the Irish system, and would continue to play that role, but in future would be working alongside other schools that embraced a different ethos."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0430/614114-education-patronage/

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/alternative-to-catholic-schools-coming-too-slowly-martin-30234527.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2012/0328/315388-educationfoi/

You can not force "inclusivity". You can not ignore the Constitutional rights of Catholics to be allowed to have religion as part of their education in Schools. Choice is fine, but complete blanket ban , where support for such schools arise, is not a good idea, and Quinn will get a hammering if he tries it. His crusade has and will fail .he will succeed in reducing the amount, and good luck to him , if that is the wishes of the parents , but don't delude yourself in thinking that it is only the Church who opposes it (well the most prominent figure supports Quinn actually)

Interesting to see when Quinn turns on the Jewish and Protestant schools.....

Delirium

you don't get to cite the constitutional rights of group A while ignoring the rights of group B,C, D, E.......

EDIT: and America forced inclusivity regarding racial segreation. I don't see why Ireland can't do the same regarding the religious issue in the public school system.

walrusgumble

TheChizler wrote: »

I would but I feel the conversation wouldn't last long enough to get to know you better.

You're coming across, to me at least and I suspect several others, as incredibly abrasive, and I feel that you are not honestly or respectively debating in what we would consider a serious issue.

Also not my drawing, found it by googling 'suicide' and another word. Was going to use seppuku as the analogy but I couldn't find any tasteful pics. Edit: and that would imply dying with honour.

You feel the need to waffle on, but won't actually address what was actually said.

Why bother responding? Trying to boast your post count?

Attacking how something is said as oppose to what was said. Pathetic tactic really, but you are not the first

Dying with honour, rather arrogant sod aren't you?

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

you don't get to cite the constitutional rights of group A while ignoring the rights of group B,C, D, E.......

NEWSFLASH..............

When you go to Court, and there is a contest between Constitutional rights of you and the State (well, the State representing Ireland and the "common good")

There is a battle between those rights, sometimes, your rights are either not recognised at all (eg Synott case about free education for a disabled 23 year old because he was not a child) or the State takes priority over your rights

Constitutional rights are not absolute. There is always a balancing act between competing rights eg Defamation and the right of privacy and good name vs right of free speech. There tends to be a "winner" and a "looser"

So, pretty naive comment to make!


I think I asked you to cite the Constitutional Provisions and Case law, earlier, regarding your earlier statements , that support your contention. You haven't done it.

Can't stop laughing at the America example. Yes, there was some success, but really? America is more broken than it ever was. (to be fair big country)

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

NEWSFLASH..............

When you go to Court, and there is a contest between Constitutional rights of you and the State (well, the State representing Ireland and the "common good")

There is a battle between those rights, sometimes, your rights are either not recognised at all (eg Synott case about free education for a disabled 23 year old because he was not a child) or the State takes priority over your rights

So, pretty naive comment to make!

not at all. You are defending the constitutional rights of Catholics to education while allowing discrimination for non-Catholics. Bit of a faux pas on your behalf.

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

I think I asked you to cite the Constitutional Provisions and Case law, earlier, regarding your earlier statements , that support your contention. You haven't done it.

That was me, and NEWSFLASH! I did. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90263336&postcount=1049

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

not at all. You are defending the constitutional rights of Catholics to education while allowing discrimination for non-Catholics. Bit of a faux pas on your behalf.

You read?

I am defending the Constitutional Right of Catholics , where, a school, by a majority, supports retaining the Status quo


I would support the rights of the other groups , if they support, in a majority, the idea of becoming non denominal.

I do not support the right of the minority to reject the majority decision, and their attempt to attack the rights of the majority, if that was to happen (eg demand to cut public funds)

I do support alternative measures being sought for the minority - eg Educate Together School with bus schemes - I sense for some "enlightened" people, that is too immigrant for them. All I hear back is complaints of being too far away (bit like local Bostonians who were schooled out of their neighbourhoods to other schools as per your example of America)



I support choice.These schemes should not be forced where there is no support for it. Where there is support fine

And again, you are naive to think that some Constitutional rights (which, by the way , you have failed to cite) don't outweigh those of others or have to be balanced .

I could not stop laughing at the America example. There is more division in that country now, than there ever was.

Nodin

walrusgumble wrote: »

You read?

I am defending the Constitutional (.............)there ever was.

walrusgrumble 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? Is there some reason you keep avoiding a fairly simple question?

TheChizler

walrusgumble wrote: »

You feel the need to waffle on, but won't actually address what was actually said.

Why bother responding? Trying to boast your post count?

Attacking how something is said as oppose to what was said. Pathetic tactic really, but you are not the first

Dying with honour, rather arrogant sod aren't you?

Just on the post count thing, I use the mobile version so have no idea of peoples post counts nor do I care, the substance of a post should determine it's value, not the poster's stats.

In the spirit of attack the post not the poster so, I shall attempt to continue the debate with you in a non-abusive way, and I would ask that you respond in kind.

Imagine your children were not of the religion of the school's ethos and were not allowed to register as there were limited spaces and children of the 'correct' religion were picked first? Imagine that this could happen legally in 90% of schools in the country. Would you feel that you were being treated less favourable because of religion?

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

And again, you are naive to think that some Constitutional rights (which, by the way , you have failed to cite) don't outweigh those of others or have to be balanced .

Je-SUS. See my comment above. For the love of all that is rational and reasoned.

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

You read?

I am defending the Constitutional Right of Catholics , where, a school, by a majority, supports retaining the Status quo


I would support the rights of the other groups , if they support, in a majority, the idea of becoming non denominal.

I do not support the right of the minority to reject the majority decision, and their attempt to attack the rights of the majority, if that was to happen

I support choice.These schemes should not be forced where there is no support for it.

And again, you are naive to think that some Constitutional rights (which, by the way , you have failed to cite) don't outweigh those of others or have to be balanced .

I could not stop laughing at the America example. There is more division in that country now, than there ever was.

There is support for a secular school system. The majority of parents support it, yet you're arguing against it. If the constitution doesn't support my argument, then you haven't a leg to stand on with your argument for Catholics rights.

And do you think Obama would be president today if racial segregation hadn't been tackled?

robindch

walrusgumble wrote: »

[...] rather arrogant sod aren't you?

walrus is taking a few days holiday.

Obliq

Ok. I'll try this again. Maybe you'll spot it this time.

Obliq wrote: »

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.

Edit: Oh, he's vanished.

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

I prefer rope, me. I was given plenty just now

I know he's not here but can't resist fixing this post

Cabaal

walrusgumble banned already?



He did an excellent job of driving himself into a brick wall in just 10 posts, pretty impressive really

PopePalpatine

walrusgumble wrote: »

Can't stop laughing at the America example. Yes, there was some success, but really? America is more broken than it ever was. (to be fair big country)

I'm trying to wrap my head around this...is America "broken" because it decided to not treat ethnic minorities as Untermenschen?

You sir, are a sad, little, ignorant man, and you have my pity.

alaimacerc

walrusgumble wrote: »

I am defending the Constitutional Right of Catholics , where, a school, by a majority, supports retaining the Status quo

I would support the rights of the other groups , if they support, in a majority, the idea of becoming non denominal.

That rather cuts to the core of the matter, in a way that other (... not so banned...) defenders of the status quo seem to be somewhat coyer about doing.

If one's rights only exist -- or "exist" in some theoretical sense, but whose vindication is endlessly deferred due to "greater rights" that are claimed to be competing -- where one is in the majority, that's not a "right" at all. It's merely majoritarianism. Or at best, some sort of localism or subsidiarity.

Absolam

I think walrusgumbles fancies may in fairness have wandered quite far afield in claiming there is a Constitutional Right of Catholics to retain a status quo in a school by majority. I've never seen anything like that in the Constitution.

pauldla

Goo goo goo joob...?

Absolam

I always thought it was "coo coo coo choo". It's true, you do learn something new every day

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

I always thought it was "coo coo coo choo". It's true, you do learn something new every day

I actually checked online, anal retentive that I am. Wouldn't want to embarrass myself in front of my fellow heathens, they might revoke my membership and ask the return of my Super Secret Atheist Decoder Ring and Fingerprint Kit (allow 28 days for delivery; offer applies to UK, RoI and BFPO only. Terms and conditions apply).

Dades

robindch wrote: »

walrus is taking a few days holiday.

Gone for good now. If he comes back, it won't be as walrusgumble.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

Gone for good now. If he comes back, it won't be as walrusgumble.

Couldn't fail to recognise the aggression. He'll be easy to spot.