School patronage

PopePalpatine

A fiver says he'll show up on Jugendschutz's forums screaming about "LIBRUL BIGUTRY" on Boards.

recedite

Anyway.....

Obliq wrote: »

A baby step in the right direction is to have all pupils treated fairly and equally whatever their religious beliefs even in an RCC school. That is something parents can get behind and the priest would have a hard time saying no to in the light of Diarmuid Martin's/dept. of ed. pronouncements.

...on a technical point, Diarmuid Martin's pronouncements do not support this view. Its the opposite really, he wants to RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed.

Ruari Quinns regular "suggestions" do support equality, but then they are just as weak as the INTO union aspirations to oppose the religious/gender discrimination allowed for in existing employment law.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

...on a technical point, Diarmuid Martin's pronouncements do not support this view. Its the opposite really, he wants to RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed.

Technically, I don't think he said he wants to RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed either?

recedite

Diarmuid Martin wrote:

...all the indications are however that a sizeable number of parents wish to see high-quality denominational education remain an essential pillar, alongside other models, of our national educational system to help young people to grow and flourish within the religious tradition to which they belong. Obviously such denominational education should not become divisive or exclusivist, but neither should religious education be reduced simply a colourless presentation of the history or the sociology of religion.....

I am uneasy when I hear of Catholic education being defined somehow as a service of quality education with religious veneer offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home......

I fear that in the current debates about divesting patronage of a substantial number of Catholic schools, the argument is being presented that Catholic schools are so “open” that that there is really no need for schools of different patronage: we Catholics can really do it all and better, so there is no need to divest. The Catholic Church in Ireland has to focus its energies more clearly on how it wishes to ensure a presence, in a more pluralist educational system, of schools and institutions which are truly Catholic.....

source

Absolam

Thanks. So, he didn't actually say he wants to RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed. Technically.

kylith

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, you too prefer that the majority pander to the minority, even the minority are free to go elsewhere.............

The minority are not free to go elsewhere. More than 90% of schools in this country are Catholic. There is simply not enough secular schools to cater to those who want them. Your suggestion that people should travel up to 60km (each way, twice a day) is simply laughable. Parents have their own jobs to get to so for the vast, vast majority spending four hours a day is not remotely feasible, not to mention the impact of such journeys on traffic flow and the environment.

walrusgumble wrote: »

Aren't the majority being discriminated against and their beliefs ignored, in favour of the minority? roll eyes

No, they are not. Religious organisations can very easily arrange for religious instruction to take place outside of school hours in school buildings, or in parish centres. However the indoctrination done to non-Catholic children in schools is very hard to undo. The only thing that is fair to everyone is to remove all religion from schools and to allow parents to instruct their children as they wish in their own time. This is not discrimination, this is giving parents control of their children's religious education, which religious parents would no doubt welcome.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Thanks. So, he didn't actually say he wants to RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed. Technically.

He said "I am uneasy when I hear of Catholic education being defined somehow as a service of quality education with religious veneer offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home......"
Which in church-speak means the same thing.

recedite

Banbh wrote: »

We have been led a merry dance on the patronage issue by Diarmuid Martin and Ruairi Quinn. There will be no change - apart from the Catholic Church 'divesting' a couple of 'immigrant' schools in areas where its influence has been effectively lost.
The parents aren't going to rock the boat, even if they wanted to, and the State isn't going to say 'boo' to the Catholic Church, even with a Minister for Education who is nominally in favour a more pluralist system.

I am now of the opinion that the best tactic for us non-religious parents is to press for religion to be moved to the end of the school day.

I agree with this assessment. But at the same time, that particular tactic does not have any chance of succeeding unless the % of parents in the particular school (potentially) in favour of it is > 50%.
Otherwise you are better off diverting your efforts into a establishing a new school.

On the immigrant schools, consider Diarmuid Martin's comment from the speech I linked to a few posts above;

Obviously such denominational education should not become divisive or exclusivist, but....

.... it reminds me of the guy down the pub who starts off with "I'm not a racist, but...." and then you just know he's going to launch into one of his anti-immigration rants :pac:

Now, I'm not at all suggesting the guy is a racist. I think he is one of their most decent men, if not the most decent. However he knows full well that the natural consequence of this strategy is to segregate off a certain section of native, white and middle to upper class kids into particular and sought after "catholic schools". Parents will compete against each other to get access to them, mainly for their "social status" value, and thereby end up passively supporting the religious indoctrination.
The conservative religious ethos of such schools will be safe from any secularising "threat" emanating from outside forces.

recedite

Oh, and I'll just add that as a general principle, public funding should only ever be given for a "service offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home"

Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the basic egalitarian principles of a democratic republic, or the separation of church and state etc etc.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

He said "I am uneasy when I hear of Catholic education being defined somehow as a service of quality education with religious veneer offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home......"
Which in church-speak means the same thing.

So...technically he didn't say he wants to RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed, he actually said he is uneasy when he hears of Catholic education being defined somehow as a service of quality education with religious veneer offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home?
I wonder, would he agree that even non-technically he said he wants the RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed, or would he say you're trying to re-interpret (through the medium of 'church-speak') what he actually did say to make it appear in a negative light?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

.... it reminds me of the guy down the pub who starts off with "I'm not a racist, but...." and then you just know he's going to launch into one of his anti-immigration rants :pac:

Hmm. Does it remind you of the guy who says "I'm not saying that he actually said this, but what he meant..."

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Oh, and I'll just add that as a general principle, public funding should only ever be given for a "service offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home"
Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the basic egalitarian principles of a democratic republic, or the separation of church and state etc etc.

Should we not publicly fund methedone clinics? Or homeless shelters? Or maternity hospitals? Or do you have someone in mind who'll decide on our behalf when it's ok for us to deviate from the 'general' principle?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Should we not publicly fund methedone clinics? Or homeless shelters? Or maternity hospitals?

These services are available to anyone that needs them. Even gays and atheists. No baptismal certificate required. No religious indoctrination of people while they are availing of the services.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

These services are available to anyone that needs them. Even gays and atheists. No baptismal certificate required. No religious indoctrination of people while they are availing of the services.

That's true. They're not however, "Services offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home" are they? Perhaps we should revise our understanding of the basic egalitarian principles of a democratic republic, and the separation of church and state?

Dades

Absolam wrote: »

That's true. They're not however, "Services offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home" are they?

I assume by "fully at home" he means not discriminated against.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

That's true. They're not however, "Services offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home" are they?

They are offered to all, even if not everyone needs to take them up.
You are just being facetious now. That's like trying to say that even a completely free, open, non-discriminatory and secular school would still not be available to all, because some of us adults are already finished with our schooldays. That is a BS argument.

Absolam

Dades wrote: »

I assume by "fully at home" he means not discriminated against.

I think he probably did. But it's not what he said is it?

recedite wrote: »

They are offered to all, even if not everyone needs to take them up.

They're not. They're offered to those who need them, even though they may not be fully at home with using them. Nevertheless, I do understand what you were trying to say.

recedite wrote: »

You are just being facetious now.

You're right. And it is a BS argument. Yet I'm able to employ it purely based on what you actually said.

How much more BS is it to facetiously misrepresent (in fact, outright lie about) someone elses statement in order to make your own point? How can you hope to engage in a constructive discussion if you're going to fabricate statements from those you oppose to look like you're holding a superior position? Not only does it destroy your credibility, it damages the credibility of the argument.

Hotblack Desiato

Absolam wrote: »

How can you hope to engage in a constructive discussion

Picking jesuitical holes in any statement critical of religion is not what I'd call constructive discussion.

Absolam

ninja900 wrote: »

Picking jesuitical holes in any statement critical of religion is not what I'd call constructive discussion.

So we ought not to challenge statements critical of religion? Or is there a certain quota of untruth that we should let slide because the statement is critical of religion?

Hotblack Desiato

Challenge the substance of the statements, absolutely.

alaimacerc

ninja900 wrote: »

Picking jesuitical holes in any statement critical of religion is not what I'd call constructive discussion.

Please, now. That's his whole act you're covering, there! (With all apologies to any actual Jesuits who might consider their own hole-picking talents unfavourably compared thereby.)

We had a perfectly faithful paraphrase of the gist of what Martin said. Absolam evidently didn't much care for its "tone". In a sensible discussion this would not be occasion for lengthy digressions to the effect of "OMG he didn't actually say that, quote me where he actually said that, that's exactly like saying [assorted stuff it's not remotely like]". Welcome to this discussion (and several just like it) instead.

Martin's said he only "needs" about half the present number of Cath-pat schools there are at present. It's not exactly the work of a paranoid radical communistic conspiracy theorist to observe the gap between words and deeds. Any number of members of the hierarchy have expressed a wish for an in-school religious component that's more, not less, and more tilted towards "instruction" and less towards "education". (I know that teaching young minds in the matter of religious doctrine, as if fact, is regarded as "indoctrination" by some (well, almost everyone, really), and that some (well, one or two) would wish to detain us endlessly with discussion of the aptness of this term. Let's compromise by not doing it any more on the public dime, then the discussion of what to call it will be entirely moot.)

Given these observations, it seems difficult to escape at least the suspicion, if not the outright conclusion, that the church wishes (insofar as it's possible to speak of the "wishes" of a poorly defined, amorphously scoped, undemocratic and (above all) tremendously opaque entity) to retain and indeed concentrate an amount of religious "teaching" at state expense that's far, far above what there's actual total demand for. It seems not unreasonable to complain about this.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

We had a perfectly faithful paraphrase of the gist of what Martin said.

We didn't though did we? And there's the problem; if you assume it is a perfectly faithful paraphrase then it colours the discussion, so now the discussion in founded in part on a lie. Martin did not say that he wants the RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed. Nor would he agree that that is a paraphrase of what he did say; his statement did not contain the intent conveyed by Recedites statement. At best it's a misrepresentation, at worst it's a flat out lie.

Hotblack Desiato

On what grounds do you say it is a misinterpretation or a lie?
What is your interpretation of Martin's statement?

Absolam

As Recidite subsequently posted Martin said "I am uneasy when I hear of Catholic education being defined somehow as a service of quality education with religious veneer offered in general to society and within which anyone can feel fully at home......"

Saying "Diarmuid Martin's pronouncements do not support this view. Its the opposite really, he wants to RCC to withdraw into a smaller number of schools where the religious discrimination and indoctrination can continue unopposed." and using the above statement to back up the assertion, is a misrepresentation.
Saying that Martin wants something, when you can be more than reasonably sure Martin if asked would say he doesn't want it, is lying.

I don't interpret his statement as I don't need to; I can read it as is.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Nor would he agree that that is a paraphrase of what he did say; his statement did not contain the intent conveyed by Recedites statement. At best it's a misrepresentation, at worst it's a flat out lie.

How do you know whether he would agree or not, have you asked him?

I'm quite happy that I paraphrased the intent of what he was saying without predudice. So before you accuse me of lying, why don't you say what exactly your problem is.

He says he does not want religion to be just "a veneer". A veneer is an add-on, something that just exists on the surface, like teaching a single religion class at the end of the day would be. Traditional religious indoctrination permeates every aspect of the school day. It is integrated into other subjects, as well as general school activities. It is not confined to one class, and certainly not to an optional class.

An openly gay teacher would not be offered a job in a traditional school of RC ethos, and neither would an atheist. A gay teacher already employed could not be open about their sexuality for fear of being sacked.
When he says he is uneasy about schools being thrown open to "general society" and letting anyone feel "at home", which particular section of society do you think he wants to make feel unwelcome, or to exclude from this homeliness?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

How do you know whether he would agree or not, have you asked him?

I haven't, which is why I said you can be more than reasonably sure, rather than make a purportedly factual statement, like "he wants".

recedite wrote: »

I'm quite happy that I paraphrased the intent of what he was saying without predudice. So before you accuse me of lying, why don't you say what exactly your problem is.

I'm sure you are, however, I don't believe Diarmuid Martin would agree that catholic schools engage in religious discrimination or indoctrination, nor that they should do so in the future. It may be your opinion that they do, and I've no problem with you saying so. The problem is you presenting your opinion as if it were Diarmuid Martins.

recedite wrote: »

He says he does not want religion to be just "a veneer". A veneer is an add-on, something that just exists on the surface, like teaching a single religion class at the end of the day would be. Traditional religious indoctrination permeates every aspect of the school day. It is integrated into other subjects, as well as general school activities. It is not confined to one class, and certainly not to an optional class.

So. Your first sentence is sort of vaguely similar to what he said; it's not actually what he said but you're approaching the ballpark. The rest is your opinion. Which is all well and good, so long as you're not presenting it as his opinion.

recedite wrote: »

An openly gay teacher would not be offered a job in a traditional school of RC ethos, and neither would an atheist. A gay teacher already employed could not be open about their sexuality for fear of being sacked. When he says he is uneasy about schools being thrown open to "general society" and letting anyone feel "at home", which particular section of society do you think he wants to make feel unwelcome, or to exclude from this homeliness?

My guess would be he feels that catholic education is not a service within which a non catholic is likely to feel fully at home. You'll note I said that's my guess, because I'm offering my opinion of what he might think. I didn't say "he wants" because I'm not in a position to speak for him.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I haven't, which is why I said you can be more than reasonably sure, rather than make a purportedly factual statement, like "he wants"..

But you did make a factual statement. You said "Nor would he agree that that is a paraphrase of what he did say; his statement did not contain the intent conveyed by Recedites statement."
Anyway, lets not get bogged down in semantics.
What do you mean by "catholic education"?
How does it differ from "education"?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

But you did make a factual statement. You said "Nor would he agree that that is a paraphrase of what he did say; his statement did not contain the intent conveyed by Recedites statement."

Fair enough; I'm happy to rephrase. Nor do I believe he would agree that it is a paraphrase of what he did say.

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, lets not get bogged down in semantics.
What do you mean by "catholic education"? How does it differ from "education"?

I don't mean anything by it; you were questioning Diarmuid Martins being "uneasy about schools being thrown open..", but that wasn't what he said. He said "I am uneasy when I hear of Catholic education being..." So my answer was based on his actual statement, rather than what you claimed he said.

expectationlost

details on new schools and their 'patronage' http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-05-07a.147&s=%22The+attached+table%22#g152.r

hmm does the original report make more sense of the bottom table http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2014050700048?opendocument#WRF01400

recedite

I see the Muslim Primary Education Board are down for a new school in Blanchardstown. There is a State funded Islamic school in the mosque in Clonskeagh, but obviously they built that themselves. Will this be the first time the Irish state has built an Islamic school?
We are going to have a right mix of fundamentalists growing up in the next few years; it looks like segregation is going to be the order of the day. Hard-core Catholics this way, Muslims that way, Protestants over there, and for anyone else left over, there is Educate Together.