School patronage

gaynorvader

Absolam wrote: »

That's really not going to cut it for parents who actually want a catholic ethos though, is it? Much as a nod towards ecumenicism didn't really cut it for protestants.
I suspect the only reason that 90% isn't substantially lower is that there hasn't been a great deal of immigration into Ireland up until the last decade or two; as we see more immigration of different faiths, or variations of the same faiths, there will be an increasing proportion of faith schools in Ireland that are not catholic, but have some other religious ethos. I think we'll discover that the reason these schools exist is less because of the machinations of the organisations that run them, and more because of the people that use them.

I doubt it, I don't know many people that went to schools with religious ethos that share that ethos with any conviction.

Bloe Joggs

swampgas wrote: »

I suspect that what most Irish parents want is a bit of a day out for communion and confirmation, and very little else. It's not like Irish "Catholic" parents are all that keen on following Catholic dogma outside of school, so I don't see why it should be such a big deal to reduce the amount of dogma inside school to match.

Yeah but that doesn't really matter as far as the church goes. Obviously they would like as many of their followers as possible to genuinely believe the dogma but once they prop it up, either through pretence or not, they are happy enough with that arrangement because it still keeps the RCC in a dominant position in society. So it's not just genuine belief that maintains the status quo, there's a whole rake of other factors. You're right about reducing the dogma in schools to match, people should be honest with themselves about that and demand change that but no-one wants to stick their neck out

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

I suspect that what most Irish parents want is a bit of a day out for communion and confirmation, and very little else. It's not like Irish "Catholic" parents are all that keen on following Catholic dogma outside of school, so I don't see why it should be such a big deal to reduce the amount of dogma inside school to match.

Almost certainly the case for most Irish parents, I'm not suggesting if we had a brand new non- religious supported school system tomorrow that we'd eventually end up with 90% catholic schools again, just that we would end up with a percentage of catholic schools, because some parents want a catholic ethos, perhaps even despite a lack of regard for catholic dogma.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I doubt it, I don't know many people that went to schools with religious ethos that share that ethos with any conviction.

Not many, but some. Almost certainly not 90%, but even from the anecdotal stories on this thread, there are plenty of parents preferring catholic schools, whether that's for religious or educational reasons.

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

Yeah but that doesn't really matter as far as the church goes. Obviously they would like as many of their followers as possible to genuinely believe the dogma but once they prop it up, either through pretence or not, they are happy enough with that arrangement because it still keeps the RCC in a dominant position in society.

I really don't think the RCC is all that invested in 'domination' these days, and it's a bit silly to imagine they're 'happy' with people genuinely not believing in the dogma. I think it's much more likely that there's a substantial degree of honesty behind Diarmuid Martins statements, and the RCC would rather have the responsibility (and expense) of a much smaller number of schools catering to a catholic core that wants them, which would also limit their exposure to an increasingly hostile secular environment. Pragmatism may be winning over proselytisation for now.

swampgas

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

Yeah but that doesn't really matter as far as the church goes. Obviously they would like as many of their followers as possible to genuinely believe the dogma but once they prop it up, either through pretence or not, they are happy enough with that arrangement because it still keeps the RCC in a dominant position in society. So it's not just genuine belief that maintains the status quo, there's a whole rake of other factors. You're right about reducing the dogma in schools to match, people should be honest with themselves about that and demand change that but no-one wants to stick their neck out

Yep, that about sums it up - especially the fact that people are awfully slow to push for change / rock the boat, especially if it involves confronting their own colleagues.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

Almost certainly the case for most Irish parents, I'm not suggesting if we had a brand new non- religious supported school system tomorrow that we'd eventually end up with 90% catholic schools again, just that we would end up with a percentage of catholic schools, because some parents want a catholic ethos, perhaps even despite a lack of regard for catholic dogma.

But isn't there an unspoken assumption here that parents are entitled to have state-funded religious education? To repeat an earlier point, why should parents expect the state - i.e. everyone else - to pay for religious ethos schools?
Can't parents teach their kids religion in the home, if religion is so important to them? Is that really so difficult?

I really don't think the RCC is all that invested in 'domination' these days, and it's a bit silly to imagine they're 'happy' with people genuinely not believing in the dogma. I think it's much more likely that there's a substantial degree of honesty behind Diarmuid Martins statements, and the RCC would rather have the responsibility (and expense) of a much smaller number of schools catering to a catholic core that wants them, which would also limit their exposure to an increasingly hostile secular environment. Pragmatism may be winning over proselytisation for now.

I would agree, however I also wonder how much joined up thinking there is in the RCC. There are many different factions pulling in different directions, many simply looking out for their own interests. What Diarmuid Martin says or wants may not apply in general.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

But isn't there an unspoken assumption here that parents are entitled to have state-funded religious education? To repeat an earlier point, why should parents expect the state - i.e. everyone else - to pay for religious ethos schools?
Can't parents teach their kids religion in the home, if religion is so important to them? Is that really so difficult?

Well no, there isn't. There are two written constitutional provisions that have direct bearing though:
‘The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.’
Which permits parents the freedom to decide what religious education their children should receive, and
‘The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.’

In short, the state isn't obliged to pay for religious ethos schools, but it is obliged to pay for schools, and it can't interfere with the provision of religious ethos, if that is what parents want. Parents can teach their children religion at home if they want, but the state can't dictate that they must.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

Well no, there isn't. There are two written constitutional provisions that have direct bearing though:
‘The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.’
Which permits parents the freedom to decide what religious education their children should receive, and
‘The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.’

In short, the state isn't obliged to pay for religious ethos schools, but it is obliged to pay for schools, and it can't interfere with the provision of religious ethos, if that is what parents want. Parents can teach their children religion at home if they want, but the state can't dictate that they must.

The problem with the constitutional provisions is that they are vague, and basically aspirational "best effort" provisions. There is nothing that I can see myself (I'm no lawyer though) that implies that state funded schools must have a specific ethos.

Also, the phrase "when the public good requires it" above could be used to argue that Ireland today requires primary schools which are inclusive and multi-denominational, as the people's concept of "public good" has changed from hard core Catholicism embedded in every organ of the state to something more modern and enlightened.

I simply don't think the constitution is an unsurmountable problem, the problem, I think, is getting people to realise that change is not only possible but actually desirable.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

The problem with the constitutional provisions is that they are vague, and basically aspirational "best effort" provisions. There is nothing that I can see myself (I'm no lawyer though) that implies that state funded schools must have a specific ethos.

No, there is no requirement on the State to ensure a school has a specific ethos; the point is that when parents choose the ethos of a school, the State cannot interfere with that ethos.

swampgas wrote: »

Also, the phrase "when the public good requires it" above could be used to argue that Ireland today requires primary schools which are inclusive and multi-denominational, as the people's concept of "public good" has changed from hard core Catholicism embedded in every organ of the state to something more modern and enlightened.

Presumably it always was used to argue that, which is why religious ethos schools can be obliged to take pupils from other/non faith backgrounds, and may not include them in faith formation without parents consent.

swampgas wrote: »

I simply don't think the constitution is an unsurmountable problem, the problem, I think, is getting people to realise that change is not only possible but actually desirable.

I don't think the constitution is a problem at all, but it cuts both ways; secular education is actually desirable to some, religious education is actually desirable to others. The constitution as is allows parents to exercise their preference either way, however by abdicating responsibility for education to the religious quite some time ago, the state has left itself in a position where it cannot honour its' constitutional obligations without a massive financial outlay, and I don't believe many people will want to pay even more taxes to rectify the situation.

Bloe Joggs

Absolam wrote: »

Almost certainly the case for most Irish parents, I'm not suggesting if we had a brand new non- religious supported school system tomorrow that we'd eventually end up with 90% catholic schools again, just that we would end up with a percentage of catholic schools, because some parents want a catholic ethos, perhaps even despite a lack of regard for catholic dogma.

Not many, but some. Almost certainly not 90%, but even from the anecdotal stories on this thread, there are plenty of parents preferring catholic schools, whether that's for religious or educational reasons.

I really don't think the RCC is all that invested in 'domination' these days, and it's a bit silly to imagine they're 'happy' with people genuinely not believing in the dogma. I think it's much more likely that there's a substantial degree of honesty behind Diarmuid Martins statements, and the RCC would rather have the responsibility (and expense) of a much smaller number of schools catering to a catholic core that wants them, which would also limit their exposure to an increasingly hostile secular environment. Pragmatism may be winning over proselytisation for now.

It simply couldn't survive without domination, that's the whole thing. Martin, just like the current pope, is all about damage control and all they're doing now is taking some time out to think about their next moves. They have a lot of cards to play and still are very much in the dominant position, they just don't want to take any more hits. Be in no doubt, the RCC is very carefully and quietly considering its strategy. Religions are expansionist cultural memes, to exist quietly hidden away from outside influences just doing their own thing without bothering anyone couldn't possibly work for them, they would die very quickly.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I think you're missing the point that people want religion in education. The people who are supporting building these new schools for example.....

That is not an argument to say segregation is not happening.
Back in the American deep south of the 1950's, the majority of people wanted white only schools. Many in the black minority, who didn't have a choice in the matter, may even have felt more comfortable attending their black schools anyway. Even today, there are certain southern churches which appear to be more or less still segregated according to race, by choice. Is this a good thing? If racial segregation in schools is bad, why is religious segregation good?

Absolam wrote: »

From our present perspective that's true. However, the education system did not change significantly in the 80s in terms of religious education, so it would seem from your example that the lack of current catholic fundamentalism (and therefore the previous fundamentalist catholic behaviour) has no correlation with the education system?

I would say that as other influences become available to counter-balance a one sided education, then the more "one dimensional" fundamentalist outlook is less likely as an outcome.
Some of these other influences that emerged were access to foreign (UK) TV stations and magazines, more people going on to third level education (which is largely secular, oddly enough) and then the advent of the internet.


The one thing kids had going for them in the two types of faith schools (RC and CoI) was the presence of friends from families who had a different outlook.
Ironically, now that there is more choice of patronage available, and more families have a chance to go elsewhere, the faith schools have a chance to become more fundamentalist. And they will seize upon it.

Its not a completely straightforward situation. We can't say its totally "a good thing" or "a bad thing" that a wide diversity of patronages is emerging. Fundamentalism and voluntary segregation will gradually increase in schools controlled by religions.
In other schools, people will will have a chance to avoid all that.

Of course, we never had much racial diversity in the past in Ireland, so we never had racial segregation, or any of that nonsense.
We practised a societal religious segregation; people were divided and educated into two different camps; protestant and catholic. And what could possibly go wrong with that

Absolam

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

It simply couldn't survive without domination, that's the whole thing. Martin, just like the current pope, is all about damage control and all they're doing now is taking some time out to think about their next moves. They have a lot of cards to play and still are very much in the dominant position, they just don't want to take any more hits. Be in no doubt, the RCC is very carefully and quietly considering its strategy. Religions are expansionist cultural memes, to exist quietly hidden away from outside influences just doing their own thing without bothering anyone couldn't possibly work for them, they would die very quickly.

I don't think that's even close to true. The RCC, or even Christianity, didn't start as a dominant religion, and has successfully ousted other religious systems throughout history to become dominant in many, but not all, areas. On the continent (or the UK even) where Protestant Christianity is dominant, or in the Middle East where Islam is dominant, the RCC still exists and is in no danger of disappearing. Nor are all religions expansionist cultural memes; only those that laud proselytism. Judaism, as a close to home example, is not expansionist and actively discourages converts. Yet, despite its various trials over the last few centuries, has not died out.

recedite wrote: »

That is not an argument to say segregation is not happening. <...> If racial segregation in schools is bad, why is religious segregation good?

We've been down this road before, and no one was able to demonstrate that racial segregation in 1950s American society was comparable to religious preference in schools in 21st century Ireland. However, for the purposes of your point the difference is straightforward; racial segregation in 1950s America was a legal requirement enforced by the government. Religious ethos schools are not required or enforced by the government; older schools are a hangover from when only religious organisations had the means or motivation to establish schools, newer schools are a result of parents choosing to establish these schools for their children. In neither case does the state legally require these schools to exist.

recedite wrote: »

Of course, we never had much racial diversity in the past in Ireland, so we never had racial segregation, or any of that nonsense.
We practised a societal religious segregation; people were divided and educated into two different camps; protestant and catholic. And what could possibly go wrong with that

It has to be said that the separation of education into protestant and catholic schools was not the cause of the divide between the two though; it was the result.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

the point is that when parents choose the ethos of a school, the State cannot interfere with that ethos.

That seems a problematic proposition to me; parents choose the school, then the school chooses the parents, and so ad infinitum while even a bare majority (or possibly just a mere plurality) obtains. And the state is obliged to simply keep writing the cheques?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

We've been down this road before, and no one was able to demonstrate that racial segregation in 1950s American society was comparable to religious preference in schools in 21st century Ireland. However, for the purposes of your point the difference is straightforward; racial segregation in 1950s America was a legal requirement enforced by the government. Religious ethos schools are not required or enforced by the government..

No that's not quite correct. It was the US federal govt. that put a stop to it. The situation in South Africa was different; in that case it was officially "an apartheid state" with apartheid policies, as imposed undemocratically by a white minority.
Racial segregation in the southern USA was only a local preference, which was tolerated by the Federal authorities for far too long. For example in the Rosa Parkes case it was the policy of the bus company. In schools and colleges, it was individual schools making the policy in accordance with the wishes of the majority of parents. In all cases local politicians pandered to the wishes of local people. That's what local politicians do.

So the question is, should the State facilitate voluntary segregation, even when there is a local demand for it?
IMO there are certain things the state should actively encourage, and there are other things it should discourage, or at least "not facilitate".
In the case of schooling, that would require a State secular school system, as they have in France and the USA. It would mean less choice, but more equality.
On the face of it then, it looks like we are going down the wrong road in Ireland with multiple patronages. I tend to take an optimistic view of things though. I hope that the number of schools with secular patronages will gradually increase until they become the norm. In effect, they will become the normal "State public schools". At that point, there will be a new generation of voters and politicians who will start to question the status quo, and to phase a gradual withdrawal of State funding from the religiously controlled schools.
This on the grounds that they allow religious discrimination, encourage the segregation of society, and have their own agenda (religious indoctrination) all of which are not the business of the State to get involved in.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

That seems a problematic proposition to me; parents choose the school, then the school chooses the parents, and so ad infinitum while even a bare majority (or possibly just a mere plurality) obtains. And the state is obliged to simply keep writing the cheques?

IN fairness the state also determines the curriculum, or at least the minimum curriculum requirements to be considered a school. And as far as writing cheques goes, only for the educational component; even the upkeep costs are shared to a degree so the State gets a good deal on religious ethos schools. The State is not as far as I know obliged to pay for religious education, nor in my opinion should it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

No that's not quite correct. It was the US federal govt. that put a stop to it.

But it was US State governments that enshrined segregation in law, and enforced the law. So it was in fact, a legal requirement, enforced by the governement.

recedite wrote: »

Racial segregation in the southern USA was only a local preference, which was tolerated by the Federal authorities for far too long. For example in the Rosa Parkes case it was the policy of the bus company. In schools and colleges, it was individual schools making the policy in accordance with the wishes of the majority of parents. In all cases local politicians pandered to the wishes of local people. That's what local politicians do.

Seriously? Rosa Parks was arrested for violating Montgomery City Ordnance, Chapter 6, Section 11. It wasn't a preference, it wasn't a policy, it was the law. As for the rest, well the Jim Crow laws have had plenty of coverage on these fora alone; they weren't individual schools making policy.

recedite wrote: »

So the question is, should the State facilitate voluntary segregation, even when there is a local demand for it?

Or to put it another way, should the State remove the right to freedom of association?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Or to put it another way, should the State remove the right to freedom of association?

Should the State facilitate freedom of association in providing state services if some people will be left high and dry, as happens every year in the scramble for school places?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

But it was US State governments that enshrined segregation in law, and enforced the law. So it was in fact, a legal requirement, enforced by the governement.

Seriously? Rosa Parks was arrested for violating Montgomery City Ordnance, Chapter 6, Section 11. It wasn't a preference, it wasn't a policy, it was the law. As for the rest, well the Jim Crow laws have had plenty of coverage on these fora alone; they weren't individual schools making policy.

A "city ordinance" in the US can be overruled by federal law, which is what happened. A US state is not sovereign like the Irish State; so a city ordinance is arguably more like a by-law that might be set by a town or county council here.

According to the law, no passengers would be required to move or give up their seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available. Over time and by custom, however, Montgomery bus drivers adopted the practice of requiring black riders to move whenever there were no white-only seats left.

source

Absolam wrote: »

Or to put it another way, should the State remove the right to freedom of association?

An interesting question. IMO yes, if its on public or state owned property.

Imagine this hypothetical situation;

A small town in rural Ireland has an influx of Muslim immigrants, among others. The State builds a new primary school to cater for the expanding population and the muslims win patronage. A rift in the community(ies) develops. County councillors vote to impose a by-law in the local park allocating a separate seating area in the local park playground for muslim parents. This is tacitly supported by muslim clerics and men, who prefer to keep their women and children "protected" from outside influences.
A free thinking non-muslim parent decides to make a point of sitting with the muslims. Somebody reports this to the park keeper, who asks them to move, but they refuse. Gardai are called, and arrest the free thinker for breach of the peace.
Now the State has two options; either prosecute the person, or declare the bylaw to be unconstitutional and release the person without charge.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

And as far as writing cheques goes, only for the educational component; even the upkeep costs are shared to a degree so the State gets a good deal on religious ethos schools. The State is not as far as I know obliged to pay for religious education, nor in my opinion should it.

You are confusing two different issues; private v public schools and faith V secular schools.
Here's an example of a school that changed from private to public, while keeping its religious ethos. It is not possible to say that the religious education component is not paid for by the state in either a public or a private school. There is no separate cost breakdown. The State just pays for the basic costs, and private schools top up for the luxuries, using their fees income.

SpaceTime

recedite wrote: »

A "city ordinance" in the US can be overruled by federal law, which is what happened. A US state is not sovereign like the Irish State; so a city ordinance is arguably more like a by-law that might be set by a town or county council here. source


An interesting question. IMO yes, if its on public or state owned property.

Imagine this hypothetical situation;

A small town in rural Ireland has an influx of Muslim immigrants, among others. The State builds a new primary school to cater for the expanding population and the muslims win patronage. A rift in the community(ies) develops. County councillors vote to impose a by-law in the local park allocating a separate seating area in the local park playground for muslim parents. This is tacitly supported by muslim clerics and men, who prefer to keep their women and children "protected" from outside influences.
A free thinking non-muslim parent decides to make a point of sitting with the muslims. Somebody reports this to the park keeper, who asks them to move, but they refuse. Gardai are called, and arrest the free thinker for breach of the peace.
Now the State has two options; either prosecute the person, or declare the bylaw to be unconstitutional and release the person without charge.

Irish Law can be overruled by European law in much the same way.
In many incidences Ireland has been embarrassingly dragged through the European Court of Human Rights on various issues. Like David Norris having to actually take legal action against the state to force it to decriminalise homosexuality.

I find Ireland has a tendency to not be able to think past status quo situations like these.

I can see access to education and discrimination against non Catholics ending up with another embarrassing court case at some stage in the future.

The status quo is just plain wrong. There's no other way of describing it.
It serves no socially useful purpose other than to force religion on people by binding it to a public service that we're forced to use.

That's a major breech of any concept of human rights, rights to religious freedom and freedom of conscience!

However, Ireland's establishment will argue and argue in favour of any status quo until they're faced with international humiliation in the courts.

That's just how this place runs.

It's a 19th century education system opperating in the 21st century.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Should the State facilitate freedom of association in providing state services if some people will be left high and dry, as happens every year in the scramble for school places?

The State doesn't facilitate freedom of association; it guarantees your right to freedom of association. I'm not sure how you think that right has anything to do with the fact that some people don't always get their preferred choice of school?

SpaceTime

I think the only way to see how ridiculous it is is to think about any other state service you're obliged to use.

Imagine St Mary's National Car Testing Service for men only.
St Bridget's Women's Car Testing Service
St Gabriel's Car Testing Services of the Sisters of Snooty who charge a 500 registration fee.
The Presbyterian Car Testing Centre.
St Catherine's Church of Ireland Car Testing
The Islamic Car Testing Organisation
The Jewish Car Testing Centre
GaelTest
Car Testing Together

The religious ones would be in 96% of locations and 90%+ would be catholic.

You'd be required to bring your baptismal certificate to get your NTC cert.
During testing, customers might be required to attend Mass or perhaps participate in Sister Concepta's retreat programme.

...

You can see how this would be seen as utterly ludicrous and a gross waste of money. Yet this is precisely how we run primary and secondary education.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

The State doesn't facilitate freedom of association; it guarantees your right to freedom of association. I'm not sure how you think that right has anything to do with the fact that some people don't always get their preferred choice of school?

Because my children's rights to freedom of disassociation are infringed by publicly funded schools, inspected by and teaching state curricula, which infuse religious doctrine throughout the day. It is impossible to have a faith school which doesn't indoctrinate all pupils, even those of other or no faith. How on earth does the school patronage system not facilitate freedom of association? Minority faiths have regularly stated that if state funding for their schools is reduced they'll be seriously affected and may close. Is state funding of faith schools not a.fine example of facilitating freedom of association?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

A "city ordinance" in the US can be overruled by federal law, which is what happened.

Well, no, that's not what happened. The state laws, collectively called the Jim Crow laws, which were the legal basis for segregation, were declared unconstitutional by the federal courts, and repealed. They weren't a preference, or a policy, they were laws. A legal requirement, enforced by the government.

recedite wrote: »

A US state is not sovereign like the Irish State; so a city ordinance is arguably more like a by-law that might be set by a town or county council here.

Sorry. According to the United States Supreme Court, each State is a sovereign jurisdiction, fully capable of passing its own laws, as is the Federal Republic as a whole. Regardless of how you perceive the law, it was a law, and she was arrested for breaking it.

recedite wrote: »

An interesting question. IMO yes, if its on public or state owned property.

That's not removing the right to freedom of association; but interestingly your suggestion could be used for instance, to prevent people protesting outside the Dail for the introduction of secular schools.

recedite wrote: »

Imagine this hypothetical situation; A small town in rural Ireland has an influx of Muslim immigrants, among others. The State builds a new primary school to cater for the expanding population and the muslims win patronage. A rift in the community(ies) develops. County councillors vote to impose a by-law in the local park allocating a separate seating area in the local park playground for muslim parents. This is tacitly supported by muslim clerics and men, who prefer to keep their women and children "protected" from outside influences.
A free thinking non-muslim parent decides to make a point of sitting with the muslims. Somebody reports this to the park keeper, who asks them to move, but they refuse. Gardai are called, and arrest the free thinker for breach of the peace.
Now the State has two options; either prosecute the person, or declare the bylaw to be unconstitutional and release the person without charge.

I'm not sure what your point is I'm afraid?
Firstly, it's up to the county council to prosecute someone who breaches a bye law. Secondly, the State can't declare a byelaw unconstitutional; a Court has to. And until a Court does, it's still a byelaw. The County Council may not bring a charge in the first place, but it doesn't simply face a choice of prosecution or declaring its' byelaw unconstitutional.

A by law preventing people from using a park based on their religion would be illegal on discrimination grounds; nothing to do with freedom of association. I'm not sure that sitting with the muslims, with no other factors involved, with be sufficient cause for a Guard to make an arrest for breach of the peace (which is to say, it wouldn't be; there would need to be a breach of the peace). The only infringement on freedom of association would be if Muslims were prevented from mixing with non Muslims, or vice versa.
Before you leap to the obvious conclusion; we have no by-law preventing non-religious students from attending religious ethos schools. Nor are they prevented from attending them; religious students may be preferred (by the school, not the State), but the Minister may direct a school to take a pupil regardless.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

You are confusing two different issues; private v public schools and faith V secular schools.
Here's an example of a school that changed from private to public, while keeping its religious ethos. It is not possible to say that the religious education component is not paid for by the state in either a public or a private school. There is no separate cost breakdown. The State just pays for the basic costs, and private schools top up for the luxuries, using their fees income.

No, I'm not. Private and public schools may be faith or secular schools. How patrons (of public schools) are required to contribute to running costs has come up in the thread previously. You say it's not possible to say that the religious education is not paid for by the state in either a public or a private school, but by your logic it's equally not possible to say that it is paid for by the State. However, the fact that you don't have access to a breakdown doesn't mean there isn't one; you just don't have access to it. I very much doubt the DoE fails to insist on a full accounting of expenditure from every school it funds.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Because my children's rights to freedom of disassociation are infringed by publicly funded schools, inspected by and teaching state curricula, which infuse religious doctrine throughout the day. It is impossible to have a faith school which doesn't indoctrinate all pupils, even those of other or no faith. How on earth does the school patronage system not facilitate freedom of association? Minority faiths have regularly stated that if state funding for their schools is reduced they'll be seriously affected and may close. Is state funding of faith schools not a.fine example of facilitating freedom of association?

I see what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure it's quite right. A right to freedom of association implies a right to not associate with someone else, but that may not extend as far as a right to disassociate yourself from someone. And I'm not sure if, as minors, children even have a right to freedom of association.
However, your children aren't being prevented from disassociating themselves from religious doctrine; they can disassociate as much as they (you) like, as long as you adhere to the minimum educational standards required by law.
The school patronage doesn't facilitate freedom of association because that is not it's purpose; remove the constitutional freedom tomorrow and the patronage system could continue unchanged.
State funding of faith schools is an example of supporting freedom of religious expression, without endowing religions. Children may be free (to some degree) to associate with other children within (faith or secular) schools, but it is hardly facilitating; they would be freer to associate on the street.

Bloe Joggs

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think the only way to see how ridiculous it is is to think about any other state service you're obliged to use.

Imagine St Mary's National Car Testing Service for men only.
St Bridget's Women's Car Testing Service
St Gabriel's Car Testing Services of the Sisters of Snooty who charge a 500 registration fee.
The Presbyterian Car Testing Centre.
St Catherine's Church of Ireland Car Testing
The Islamic Car Testing Organisation
The Jewish Car Testing Centre
GaelTest
Car Testing Together

The religious ones would be in 96% of locations and 90%+ would be catholic.

You'd be required to bring your baptismal certificate to get your NTC cert.
During testing, customers might be required to attend Mass or perhaps participate in Sister Concepta's retreat programme.

...

You can see how this would be seen as utterly ludicrous and a gross waste of money. Yet this is precisely how we run primary and secondary education.

Brilliant. I laughed.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

I see what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure it's quite right. A right to freedom of association implies a right to not associate with someone else, but that may not extend as far as a right to disassociate yourself from someone. And I'm not sure if, as minors, children even have a right to freedom of association.
However, your children aren't being prevented from disassociating themselves from religious doctrine; they can disassociate as much as they (you) like, as long as you adhere to the minimum educational standards required by law.
The school patronage doesn't facilitate freedom of association because that is not it's purpose; remove the constitutional freedom tomorrow and the patronage system could continue unchanged.
State funding of faith schools is an example of supporting freedom of religious expression, without endowing religions. Children may be free (to some degree) to associate with other children within (faith or secular) schools, but it is hardly facilitating; they would be freer to associate on the street.

You're just spillting hairs now. Anyone has the right to freedom of disassociation as a constitutional right. Schools are absolutely being facilitated in making freedom of association of faiths easier at the expense of children of different backgrounds. Why is our system, which discriminates against and indoctrinates children, appropriate? Why are you so willing to defend it?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

A by law preventing people from using a park based on their religion would be illegal on discrimination grounds; nothing to do with freedom of association. I'm not sure that sitting with the muslims, with no other factors involved, with be sufficient cause for a Guard to make an arrest for breach of the peace (which is to say, it wouldn't be; there would need to be a breach of the peace).

I didn't say a law preventing the free thinker from using the park , I said a hypothetical bylaw providing for a separate seating area for muslims. If the free thinker refused to comply with a request by the park keeper to leave the muslim seating area, then that would be a breach of the peace.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

State funding of faith schools is an example of supporting freedom of religious expression, without endowing religions.

Allegedly.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

The state laws, collectively called the Jim Crow laws, which were the legal basis for segregation, were declared unconstitutional by the federal courts, and repealed.

Well, if we're going to split hairs -- and experience tells me that we most certainly are -- the federal constitution is most definitely part of "federal law". That the federal legislature is not directly superior to the states (as is the case with "devolved bodies" elsewhwere) is a different, narrower point.

Sorry. According to the United States Supreme Court, each State is a sovereign jurisdiction, fully capable of passing its own laws, as is the Federal Republic as a whole.

Parallel sovereignty is an interesting concept, but it's clearly not what the average European means when they say "sovereignty". (Much less what a Ukipper thinks of such matters.)

ETA: Oh, the very title "Montgomery City Ordinance" contains certain subtle clues within it that it is in fact not "state law" at all, so this discourse is entirely besides the point.