School patronage

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not hearing the difference. Are you perhaps confusing rejection of intolerance on the one hand, with intolerance of its victims on the other?

Really? Well, I reckon children who learn tolerance won't tend to think of others in terms of enemies to be recognised, so they'll be different from the children who think in terms of enemy recognition being a key element of any good operational strategy. So no, no confusion.

alaimacerc wrote: »

It seems inarguable that the point can be argued against. Is it arguable that it can be argued for, however?

Of course it is.

alaimacerc wrote: »

The de facto situation in Ireland is terrible, by any European standard.

Well, that really depends on your perspective on the de facto situation in Ireland, and what European standard you're applying to it. For instance, even a nominally cultural catholic would probably prefer the non State mandated religious curriculum of a Christian Brothers school, to the State mandated Lutheran curriculum of a Norwegian school.

alaimacerc wrote: »

if the Irish constitution necessitates that (as seems to be your general mood music on this topic -- isn't it unfortunate that the odd person finds themselves in such a situation, butbutbut, religious and property rights must prevail!), then why is there anything commendable about it? Simply that it precludes some hypothetical yet-worse outcome that doesn't actually in any case arise elsewhere?

You seem to have wandered astray of what I find commendable in your dedication to obtuse digressions I'm afraid.
What I do find commendable in the Constitution in this instance is that by reserving the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction within it, parents have an absolute recourse if a school (or government) attempts to oblige a student to receive religious instruction, which cannot be altered by law, only plebiscite.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Really? Well, I reckon children who learn tolerance won't tend to think of others in terms of enemies to be recognised, so they'll be different from the children who think in terms of enemy recognition being a key element of any good operational strategy. So no, no confusion.

Seems pretty confused to me. (Or else a deliberate attempt to put "religious people are the enemy" in my mouth as opposed to "religions are".)

Well, that really depends on your perspective on the de facto situation in Ireland, and what European standard you're applying to it. For instance, even a nominally cultural catholic would probably prefer the non State mandated religious curriculum of a Christian Brothers school, to the State mandated Lutheran curriculum of a Norwegian school.

So the standard you have in mind is "remorselessly contrived", then, one infers.

You seem to have wandered astray of what I find commendable in your dedication to obtuse digressions I'm afraid.

When what you find commendable becomes a good deal less opaque, then you can presume to lecture others' obtuseness, perhaps.

What I do find commendable in the Constitution in this instance is that by reserving the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction within it, parents have an absolute recourse if a school (or government) attempts to oblige a student to receive religious instruction, which cannot be altered by law, only plebiscite.

Thus, very little in actual practice. To which point I refer you back to my supposed "digression".

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Seems pretty confused to me. (Or else a deliberate attempt to put "religious people are the enemy" in my mouth as opposed to "religions are".)

Perhaps a further step back then? Thinking in terms of 'the enemy' at all, is somewhat different from thinking in terms of tolerance and understanding. If that still confuses you it's less likely to be my inability to underline a distinction between the two and more likely to be a fundamental world view issue, I think.

alaimacerc wrote: »

So the standard you have in mind is "remorselessly contrived", then, one infers.

Well, you could infer it, but I didn't actually have a standard in mind; you offered any European standard, I just pointed out that by one possible standard off the top of my head, the de facto situation in Ireland isn't terrible, contrary to your assertion.

alaimacerc wrote: »

When what you find commendable becomes a good deal less opaque, then you can presume to lecture others' obtuseness, perhaps.

Heaven forfend I should presume to lecture on anything, I'm sure. But I hardly think "What I do find commendable in the Constitution in this instance is that by reserving the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction within it, parents have an absolute recourse if a school (or government) attempts to oblige a student to receive religious instruction, which cannot be altered by law, only plebiscite." is the most opaque statement offered on the thread, especially when compared to the likes of "as seems to be your general mood music on this topic -- isn't it unfortunate that the odd person finds themselves in such a situation, butbutbut, religious and property rights must prevail!"

alaimacerc wrote: »

Thus, very little in actual practice. To which point I refer you back to my supposed "digression".

I can't say I'd equate 'absolute' with 'very little', but I shan't lecture you on it. As for in practice I suppose, just like religious instruction, that's a decision for parents to make, or not, as they choose.

Proxima Centauri

I got this ray of sunshine in the door yesterday. Nice to know my 2 boys are considered 8th class citizens. I know this subject has been done to death at this stage but to see it in black and white and your own kids been discriminated against for lack of belief by the parents in any deity is f*cking infuriating.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Think not.
If religious education is the responsibility of the state, then there's at least a fighting chance it'll actually be education about religions, and ideally including non-belief positions as well, rather than indoctrination in one religion.

Although they do seem to be labouring under the misconception that there is a widespread and effective ability to opt out of religious indoctrination in denominational schools here.

“As a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society, it is imperative that Ireland continues to strengthen a non-discriminatory perspective in education and promote religious pluralism.”
This should include a form of religious education that did promote one particular religion over others, they argue.

missing not in last sentence?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. But rec seems to be assuming that the children in the school that this girl attends are there because they can't get into other schools, and that they would prefer non-Catholic schools. There is no evidence of this in the article. The only pupil whose preference we know is the girl concerned, and her preferred school is in fact for a Catholic school.

Actually there is no evidence in the article to suggest that the kids attending the missionary school want to attend a denominational RC school. Nor is there any evidence that they want to avoid one.
The only certainty is that the dad clearly expressed his preference for the little girl to mix with the local ("native") Irish kids on the street, who were allowed to go to the nearest school.

My presumption that the kids in the missionary school might prefer a different kind of ethos, such as multi-denominational ET, is based on two observations;
1) Generally parents do not like their kids being indoctrinated and converted to a religion different to their own. Sometimes however, they will tolerate this in return for something they believe to be of greater value than religion, such as a free education for their child. This was historically the modus operandi of a classic missionary school. Whats new in the 21st century is a modern EU state building and operating them within its own borders.
2) They expressed a wish not to be segregated. Perhaps you are right, I was a little OTT in saying "forcibly" segregated. How about I rephrase to "systematically segregated"? Is that more to your taste?

There was no specific info on the missionary school, other than it being a half hour drive away. However there are other examples around such as this one.

Roughly 10% of the students in the new school have Irish parents while the other 90% would have parents who have immigrated into Ireland.
She said the school’s enrolment policy is not be based on religious affiliation as Le Chéile welcomes students from all faith traditions and none but on catchment area.
“We are open to everybody; that is very much what catholic education is about – being open to everybody and learning from one another. We have Muslims students, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Christians and a small percentage of Catholic students. Most of our Irish students would describe themselves as nominally catholic – church attendance in the area is low.”

Notice how the school proudly proclaims itself to be a RC school that does not use religious discrimination in the admissions policy.
But when all the other local schools do.....

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

missing not in last sentence?

Ah ok I thought you meant the sentence immediately before where you said that.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Actually there is no evidence in the article to suggest that the kids attending the missionary school want to attend a denominational RC school. Nor is there any evidence that they want to avoid one.
The only certainty is that the dad clearly expressed his preference for the little girl to mix with the local ("native") Irish kids on the street, who were allowed to go to the nearest school.

Was there a mention of a missionary school at all? I can't see it either in the Irish Times piece or the Broadsheets lift from Educate Together?

That the child's father wanted the girl to go school with local children is not in doubt, but it's clear from the IT article that she didn't necessarily fail to get into that local school because of her religion; when they applied they were told there was no place for her, and that they had applied late. That doesn't suggest there were places available but she wouldn't get one after being filtered by their enrollment criteria (because they would have said there was probably or most likely not going to be a place for her), it suggests all the places were already filled. And the school have not said in any of the correspondence in the article that she was refused a place because of her religion. It specifically said she was on a wait list for 2016, and that they could not be assured of a place because school policy was Catholic children would be prioritised. To prioritise Catholic children they would have to be on the wait list, which suggests there were also Catholic children who had been told there was no place for them in the school that year.

My impression is that these parents were unfortunate in that they moved to Dublin and found (as the article says) that they were unaware of the pressure on school places in parts of Dublin, were late in applying for schools and ended up in the exact same position as Catholic parents in the same circumstances would have; having to send their child to a school further from where they lived than they would have liked. Those Catholic parents in the same situation would probably have a better chance of getting a place in the school the following year with places actually available (if where they live actually is in the same parish as the school, since we don't know that it is), but there's no reason to imagine they'd have had any better luck than the Hindu family this year.

recedite wrote: »

My presumption that the kids in the missionary school might prefer a different kind of ethos, such as multi-denominational ET, is based on two observations;
1) Generally parents do not like their kids being indoctrinated and converted to a religion different to their own. Sometimes however, they will tolerate this in return for something they believe to be of greater value than religion, such as a free education for their child. This was historically the modus operandi of a classic missionary school. Whats new in the 21st century is a modern EU state building and operating them within its own borders.

That's not actually an observation though; it's a speculation. An observation would be that all the data presented on this thread so far show that a majority of parents given a choice prefer schools under religious patronage. You've actually put forward some of that data yourself, so it's pretty odd you'd speculate to the contrary.

recedite wrote: »

2) They expressed a wish not to be segregated. Perhaps you are right, I was a little OTT in saying "forcibly" segregated. How about I rephrase to "systematically segregated"? Is that more to your taste?

That's not true though; Eva asked why she didn't go to school with her friends. Not a word about being segregated; her father said he didn't want to fill her head about discrimination, which is laudable, but not the same. Eva wants to go to a Catholic school with her (new) friends from her (new) street, and instead has to go to a Catholic school much further away, because there isn't a place for her. It's really stretching the notion of 'segregation' when a Hindu can't go to the Catholic school they want, but go to another Catholic school instead.

recedite wrote: »

There was no specific info on the missionary school, other than it being a half hour drive away. However there are other examples around such as this one. Notice how the school proudly proclaims itself to be a RC school that does not use religious discrimination in the admissions policy. But when all the other local schools do.....

Examples of what? The article says it's also a Catholic school, like the one Eva wanted to attend, and Mr Panicker said it was a big Catholic school with lots of spaces, but that's all we know about it. For all we know, Eva might be the only non 55th generation Dublin Catholic in the whole school. There's no reason to think she is, and no reason to think she isn't.

wench

Nasty secularists threatening poor innocent religious....
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/secularist-elite-behind-religious-education-plan-event-hears-1.2393640

“We cannot simply accept the notion that is becoming prevalent that our personal and private lives as educators do not matter, only your expertise and competence."

Daith

wench wrote: »

Nasty secularists threatening poor innocent religious....
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/secularist-elite-behind-religious-education-plan-event-hears-1.2393640

Perfect example why Catholic Church actually needs to divest schools for their own sake.

Hotblack Desiato

Daith wrote: »

Perfect example why Catholic Church actually needs to divest schools for their own sake.

If they want ultra-catholic little indoctrination factories in accordance with the likes of Iona's views, they should fund them themselves. I'd pity the poor kids sent to such places though.

And they'll soon be breaking the law if they refuse to employ gay teachers

Absolam

Nice to know there's finally a secularist elite though, eh? And that proposals at the request of Atheist Ireland are being implemented in the new Education about Religions and Beliefs and ethics programme.

Not such a gloomy Friday!

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Nice to know there's finally a secularist elite though, eh?!

There's always an elite. It's the same "elite" that drove the marriage referendum. Good to know the working class areas which returned the highest percent are the new elite :P

Ordinary people having the issues with the Church wouldn't work.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

There's always an elite. It's the same "elite" that drove the marriage referendum. Good to know the working class areas which returned the highest percent are the new elite :P
Ordinary people having the issues with the Church wouldn't work right.

Hmmm. Not sure an elite can also be a majority, but I don't want to spoil the mood. Hurrah for the new elite who outnumber the common!

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Hmmm. Not sure an elite can also be a majority, but I don't want to spoil the mood. Hurrah for the new elite who outnumber the common!

Well this is all coming from one person at an Iona led meeting so pardon me if their images of under siege mentality from the elite isn't working for me.

The Church never grasped the marriage referendum and they're not grasping this either. Then again the Church always likes to believe in fairy tales.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Well this is all coming from one person at an Iona led meeting so pardon me if their images of under siege mentality from the elite isn't working for me.
The Church never grasped the marriage referendum and they're not grasping this either.

What, you're demoting the elite already? I don't think you're really getting into the spirit of not such a gloomy Friday at all....

Though I suppose being under siege by the elite wouldn't be as bad being under siege by the common, since there'd be less of them. Unless they were one of those new majority elites. So that might not be so gloomy. Maybe you are getting into the spirit.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

What, you're demoting the elite already? I don't think you're really getting into the spirit of not such a gloomy Friday at all....

I haven't had a gloomy Friday since David Quinn admitted defeat so early on May 23rd.

Watching him wonder were the Catholic Bishops were at while children are being forced to learn about Trans people instead of their ABCs only continues my non gloomy Friday and in fact every day!

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

I haven't had a gloomy Friday since David Quinn admitted defeat so early on May 23rd.
Watching him wonder were the Catholic Bishops were at while children are being forced to learn about Trans people instead of their ABCs only continues my non gloomy Friday and in fact every day!

You were happy children were forced to learn something instead of their abcs? Shocking. If they don't learn their abcs they'll never learn the difference between were and where.... Such a disregard for child welfare doesn't contribute to not gloomy Fridays at all!

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

You were happy children were forced to learn something instead of their abcs? Shocking. If they don't learn their abcs they'll never learn the difference between were and where.... Such a disregard for child welfare doesn't contribute to not gloomy Fridays at all!

Meanwhile the Catholic Church and its supporters value indoctrination above education.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

You were happy children were forced to learn something instead of their abcs?

Apparently marriage and trans issues are a big part of the primary school curriculum these days.
Nice to see progressive studies!


Meanwhile the secular elite can't even get Hindu's into a school without them being baptized first apparently.

expectationlost

wench wrote: »

Nasty secularists threatening poor innocent religious....
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/secularist-elite-behind-religious-education-plan-event-hears-1.2393640

“We cannot simply accept the notion that is becoming prevalent that our personal and private lives as educators do not matter, only your expertise and competence.

Atheist Ireland main criticism of the ERB curriculum was that it would me mixed with faith teaching and then allow no-opt out http://atheist.ie/2015/03/ncca-erb-ethics-course/

also

2.2 The right to private and family life
Parents have a human right not to be required to reveal their religious or philosophical convictions and not to be compelled to assume a stance from which it may be inferred whether or not they have such beliefs (Article 8). Given what happened at second level with the Religious Education course we can only assume that the NCCA do not understand this human right.
Any course that puts parents in the position that they must reveal directly or indirectly their religious or philosophical convictions falls foul of the negative aspect of Article 9 (freedom of conscience) of the European Convention and Article 8 (the right to private and family life).
In Grzelak v Poland 2010 the European Court stated that:

87. The Court reiterates that freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs comprises also a negative aspect, namely the right of individuals not to be required to reveal their faith or religious beliefs and not to be compelled to assume a stance from which it may be inferred whether or not they have such beliefs (see, Alexandridis v. Greece, no. 19516/06, § 38, ECHR 2008…, and, mutatis mutandis, Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, § 76 in fine, ECHR 2007XI). The Court has accepted, as noted above, that Article 9 is also a precious asset for non-believers like the third applicant in the present case. It necessarily follows that there will be an interference with the negative aspect of this provision when the State brings about a situation in which individuals are obliged – directly or indirectly – to reveal that they are non-believers. This is all the more important when such obligation occurs in the context of the provision of an important public service such as education.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Meanwhile the Catholic Church and its supporters value indoctrination above education.

Sure. Not that they've ever said that though, right? Or even that they've ever indicated they think it; they'll always been fairly clear that they believe religious instruction is an integral part of education. To my mind that's sufficiently contentious, but I guess you felt you needed the strawman for some reason?

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Apparently marriage and trans issues are a big part of the primary school curriculum these days. Nice to see progressive studies! Meanwhile the secular elite can't even get Hindu's into a school without them being baptized first apparently.

Brilliant! As an answer to why you'd be happy for children to be forced to learn about trans people rather than have enough education in their abcs to even tell the difference between were and where, I don't think anyone could ridicule your position better than you have done yourself

The Black Oil

Secularist elite? What about us lowly peasant secularists?

robindch

Mod:

Absolam wrote: »

[...] enough education in their abcs to even tell the difference between were and where [...]

Should be "ABC's".

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think anyone could ridicule your position better than you have done yourself

John 8:7.

Correcting speling and grammer is considered infra-dig, here at A+A.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Sure. Not that they've ever said that though, right? Or even that they've ever indicated they think it; they'll always been fairly clear that they believe religious instruction is an integral part of education. To my mind that's sufficiently contentious, but I guess you felt you needed the strawman for some reason?

Teaching of church doctrine is the first and most important aspect of education in a catholic ethos school:

3.3 In their Submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child the Holy See stated that:-

“Aims of Catholic Education. The content of Catholic education is inspired by Christian anthropology, guided by Scripture, Church tradition and Church teachings.”

Introduction. The Holy See promotes and encourages the system of Catholic schools, which are not State institutions but nonetheless have a public function. The educational activities are carried out in accordance with the Catholic school’s own authority and responsibility under canon law, and pursuant to the laws of the respective States in which they operate.

The Catholic school is a “place of ‘integral education of the human person through a clear educational project of which Christ is the foundation’, directed at creating a synthesis between faith, culture and life” (CCE, “Educating Together in Catholic Schools: A Shared Mission Between Persons of Consecrated Life, and the Lay Faithful,”

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Was there a mention of a missionary school at all? I can't see it either in the Irish Times piece or the Broadsheets lift from Educate Together?

That was my own description; hopefully it will catch on. Do you not think it's a fair description when a religious organisation manages a religious school which specifically caters for kids who have yet to be converted to that religion?
The church has already filtered out its own people by asking for baptismal certs, and admitted only those kids to the other more desirable RC schools.
The pupils in these missionary schools are mostly the children of foreigners, but with a few "Irish Catholics" who lack baptismal certs and don't attend mass (in other words, native atheists and agnostics)

Absolam wrote: »

..they were unaware of the pressure on school places in parts of Dublin, were late in applying for schools and ended up in the exact same position as Catholic parents in the same circumstances would have..

Not the same at all. Even if they had lived there all their lives, and applied for a place as soon as the mother became pregnant, they still would have had no chance of a place in their local (publicly funded) school. Because they subscribe to a foreign, heathen religion.

Absolam wrote: »

An observation would be that all the data presented on this thread so far show that a majority of parents given a choice prefer schools under religious patronage. You've actually put forward some of that data yourself, so it's pretty odd you'd speculate to the contrary.

I have said that before, and I have also said that the definition of a republic is "rule by law", which protects against an unbridled democracy which allows "the tyranny of the majority".
The best form of government is a democratic republic, with laws to protect its minorities. Pertinent examples are the constitutional guarantees to cherish all the children equally, and not to endow religion. These provisions are being violated daily.
I have no objection to the RCC building and funding missionary schools either here or abroad, but I object to the state doing it.

Absolam wrote: »

That's not true though; Eva asked why she didn't go to school with her friends. Not a word about being segregated; her father said he didn't want to fill her head about discrimination, which is laudable, but not the same.

Whats your point? That if you use discrimination to separate people, its not the same as segregation?
I'm not seeing any difference.

We cannot simply accept the notion that is becoming prevalent that our personal and private lives as educators do not matter, only your expertise and competence.

This quote from RCC simply shows that they value theocracy over a meritocracy. That's fine within their own organisation, but it cannot be tolerated within a state school system.
The Dept. of Education pays teachers salaries. It is intolerable that a highly competent teacher who was gay, atheist, or living unmarried (in sin) in their private life would be rejected as a public sector employee in favour of a devout but obviously incompetent teacher who dutifully attended mass every week.

expectationlost

2 part Doc: A Different Class: establishment of an Educate Together secondary school in west Dublin http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/filmandtv/what-to-watch-on-tv-this-week-359469.html Thursday RTÉ One, 10.15pm

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Teaching of church doctrine is the first and most important aspect of education in a catholic ethos school:

So, they don't say they value indoctrination above education? That's what I thought alright

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That was my own description; hopefully it will catch on. Do you not think it's a fair description when a religious organisation manages a religious school which specifically caters for kids who have yet to be converted to that religion?

It could be if the purpose of the school was to convert children, certainly. But there is not reason to think that this particular school either catered specifically for kids that aren't members of the religion, or that it had the purpose of converting them, do we? All we know is that it is 'a big Catholic school with lots of spaces' according to Mr Panicker. No reason to imagine it's a 'missionary' school at all?

recedite wrote: »

The church has already filtered out its own people by asking for baptismal certs, and admitted only those kids to the other more desirable RC schools.

Again, there's no evidence of that either? No mention of children being asked for baptismal certs at all in the article. Nor any evidence that any of the other Catholic schools are any more desirable to anyone other than Eva (for whom only one Catholic school was particularly desirable). In fact, the school she attends might well be the most desirable for some people who are attending it; there's no reason to think it isn't.

recedite wrote: »

The pupils in these missionary schools are mostly the children of foreigners, but with a few "Irish Catholics" who lack baptismal certs and don't attend mass (in other words, native atheists and agnostics)

Is there a reason to think any of that applies to the school Eva is attending? Because frankly, you seem to be making it up entirely.... Even the example (of a completely different school) that you offered as a 'missionary' school is a Catholic school because local parents predominantly favoured Le Chéile, an overtly Catholic patron, over Educate Together. And not a word in the article about trying to convert students to Catholicism.
If that's all you've got, I don't think there's much chance of your 'missionary' categorisation catching on to be honest..

recedite wrote: »

Not the same at all. Even if they had lived there all their lives, and applied for a place as soon as the mother became pregnant, they still would have had no chance of a place in their local (publicly funded) school. Because they subscribe to a foreign, heathen religion.

You don't actually know that's true though, do you? They're currently on a waiting list, because they have a chance of getting a place in 2016. For all you know, the school could well have completed it's intake for 2015 with all five priorities catered for fully, and still had places for other students which they filled before Mr Panicker applied. The article doesn't actually say there are no non-Catholic pupils in the school, does it?

recedite wrote: »

I have said that before, and I have also said that the definition of a republic is "rule by law", which protects against an unbridled democracy which allows "the tyranny of the majority".

I know, they tyranny of the majority is always trotted out when a democratic decision doesn't go someones way. In the case of schooling though, in our Republic a tyranny of the majority cannot be imposed; individual choice is preserved in the Constitution allowing you to choose to educate your children entirely separately from the choices the majority of parents make if you want. You may have to make some more effort than the majority, but you certainly can't claim they're imposing their decisions on you.

recedite wrote: »

The best form of government is a democratic republic, with laws to protect its minorities. Pertinent examples are the constitutional guarantees to cherish all the children equally, and not to endow religion. These provisions are being violated daily.

Certainly, the meaning of the word 'endow' is violated regularly in A&A. Not so much by the State that anyone has been able to make a case before the SC though, eh?

recedite wrote: »

I have no objection to the RCC building and funding missionary schools either here or abroad, but I object to the state doing it.

Tell you what; if the State ever does build and fund missionary schools either here or abroad, I'll join your crusade against them.

recedite wrote: »

Whats your point? That if you use discrimination to separate people, its not the same as segregation? I'm not seeing any difference.

My point is you're claiming segregation (replete with the connotation of placing racial before it) without any evidence of segregation other than the normal separation of students into different schools when they can't all be fitted into one building. Mr Panicker doesn't go that far; he says he doesn't want to fill his daughters head about discrimination because he feels she should be able to a school within walking distance without her religion being an issue. But it is an issue; it's a Catholic school. If it were a boys school, her sex would be an issue. Even if it were neither; if it were an all girls Hindu school, she still might not have gotten a place given how late they applied.
But that wouldn't have made a good story, because the inference (which is all there is in the article) couldn't be made that it's because they're Hindu, and Catholic schools (other than the ones that do, including your 'missionary' example) won't take them. Bad Catholics, tut tut.
Mr Panicker hasn't said that he knows his daughter would have gotten a place if she was Catholic (and neither has the school); he's simply using what he can to make a case to get his daughter what she wants, which I don't blame him for

recedite wrote: »

This quote from RCC simply shows that they value theocracy over a meritocracy. That's fine within their own organisation, but it cannot be tolerated within a state school system.
The Dept. of Education pays teachers salaries. It is intolerable that a highly competent teacher who was gay, atheist, or living unmarried (in sin) in their private life would be rejected as a public sector employee in favour of a devout but obviously incompetent teacher who dutifully attended mass every week.

There's absolutely no reason for Catholic educational institutions to value merit over theology though. Their purpose is to provide a Catholic education; they're not hiding the fact!
If people don't want to use those institutions, that's fine, they're absolutely not obliged to, they can use their own. The State is obliged to provide for education; it can do that in Recedites National Secular Educational Institutions as easily as in the Christian Brothers, as long as there are students there to be educated. So.... where do most parents want to put their children to be educated, according to the data we've seen so far?