Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
School patronage
Comments
-
TD Ruairi Quinn
16 October 2015 13:00
Ruairi Quinn Labour TD in Dublin Bay South and former minister for education is not going to seek election next time around he was in studio this afternoon to chat to Ray
http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/1016/20151016_rteradio1-theraydarcyshow-tdruairiqu_c20865102_20865119_232_drm_.mp3
'not churches fault that they dominate' ? then laters says vocational schools only allowed under conditions of the church
if darcy did any research re admissions legislation he could have challenged it further
committee he references https://www.kildarestreet.com/committees/?id=2015-05-13a.1684&s=catholic+by+compulsion#g1716
says 'vocational school anniversy celebrated by mass, vocational was dominated by church'0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26428
So was speaking to my nephew yesterday about his upcoming communion, I've never actually talking about religion and his thoughts on it before.
Anyway, he mentioned how the stuff said in mass is just silly but he's looking forward to the money next year. He did consider not doing the communion for awhile because he see's the mass stuff as stupid and pointless but then he said he didn't want to miss out on the money.
Am curious how many kids doing the communion are doing it for the money like him?0 -
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26428
rainbow kirby wrote: »Probably most of them! Sounds like pretty much my exact reasoning for going through with confirmation 20 years ago...
Yeah, mine too.
He kinda reminded me of me when I was that age as his views mirrored my own back then, funny really.0 -
Two guys who play GAA for Donegal, Kevin Cassidy and Eamonn McGee, had a a twitterspat last month about catholic selection criteria for schools.
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/10/02/news/donegal-gaa-stars-in-twitter-religion-row-279966/
The guy whose religion benefits from religious control of access really can't see what the problem is and just wants the other guy to shut up:
McGee - Sad to see in this day and age religion being used as a selection criteria in schools. Is there any genuine argument in having it this way?
Cassidy - your religious comments are getting tiresome. Did you not go around coaching in Catholic schools?? You had no issue then!
McGee - I'm sorry Cass I can't connect the dots on that last tweet, me coaching in schools and their admission policy/ethos aren't related?
Cassidy - my point being is that I never heard you bringing it up with the principal in the staff room? Looking after number one€€€
McGee - just out of interest would you agree with it being used as a selection criteria for schools? Do you think its fair?
[...]
Cassidy - like I said its getting tiresome 1 week it's Schools next it's the Pope then it's Mass!! U should stop now0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
And they'll soon be breaking the law if they refuse to employ gay teachers
Are there proposals to repeal the "religious ethos" exception under the equality Acts (Section 37)? I wasn't aware of any.0 -
So was speaking to my nephew yesterday about his upcoming communion, I've never actually talking about religion and his thoughts on it before.
Anyway, he mentioned how the stuff said in mass is just silly but he's looking forward to the money next year. He did consider not doing the communion for awhile because he see's the mass stuff as stupid and pointless but then he said he didn't want to miss out on the money.
Am curious how many kids doing the communion are doing it for the money like him?
Little Kiwi is in communion class next year. To avoid him wanting to do it for the money, gifts and party, we are going on holiday that week and won't be in the country. He will be given a 'choice' of mass or Disneyland. He has no interest in religion, but I am slightly concerned that an interest in communion will develop when he realises what all his friends will be getting out of it.0 -
-
I thought it was clear in my earlier post that the example I gave was from a different school; because we don't know the name of the school the girl actually got her place in. However the girl was said to have been sent to a school quite far away, with vacant places, because she was not a bona fide RC child. It would hardly have vacant places if it was considered one of the more desirable schools.The school in my example was similar to this description, and filled with similar type pupils (not RC).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.
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..
Its important to note that "the democratic majority" (ie the parents who choose the RC denominational ethos for these type of schools) do not send their own kids to them. Nor is it likely they ever intended to, even when they were putting their child's name down on the “expression of interest” list. Yet by virtue of their overwhelming numbers on that list, the Dept. of Education allocates the patronage of a new school to their preferred ethos. So it represents the preferred school of a local majority, which is being imposed on various local minorities.The patronage of the school for minorities is thus based on a lie; hence it becomes a missionary school.0 -
It certainly was; you clearly said "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" and then went on to conflate them by talking about "The pupils in these missionary schools", remember?I thought it was clear in my earlier post that the example I gave was from a different school; because we don't know the name of the school the girl actually got her place in.
That's literally not true though; nobody said she was sent to the school because she was not a bona fide RC child.However the girl was said to have been sent to a school quite far away, with vacant places, because she was not a bona fide RC child.
"On November 14th, 2014, they got a letter from the first school saying there was no place for Eva". Nothing about her being not a bona fide RC child; just no place.
"Eva got a place in a school a half-hour drive away. “It is a big Catholic school with lots of spaces,” says Mr Panicker." The only distinctions offered between the school Eva wanted, and the one she got, was the one she wanted was across the park, and the one she got was half an hour away, was to Mr Panickers mind 'big' (which suggests he considered the other school to be smaller), and he said it had lots of spaces.
No one in the article has said that she didn't get a place in this school year because she isn't a RC child, bona fide or otherwise.
It certainly could if it was a big school with lots of spaces, as Mr Panicker said it was. Especially if there were other desirable big schools with lots of spaces near to it.It would hardly have vacant places if it was considered one of the more desirable schools.The school in my example was similar to this description, and filled with similar type pupils (not RC)..
Why would anyone note that when there was no evidence of it presented? Apparently all the other children on Evas street go to the school across the park; why do you think none of their parents are part of the democratic majority that chose the schools ethos?Its important to note that "the democratic majority" (ie the parents who choose the RC denominational ethos for these type of schools) do not send their own kids to them.
That's an astonishingly convoluted piece of illogic.Nor is it likely they ever intended to, even when they were putting their child's name down on the “expression of interest” list. Yet by virtue of their overwhelming numbers on that list, the Dept. of Education allocates the patronage of a new school to their preferred ethos. So it represents the preferred school of a local majority, which is being imposed on various local minorities.The patronage of the school for minorities is thus based on a lie; hence it becomes a missionary school.
There's no reason whatsoever to think parents didn't want to send their children to a school they expressed interest in sending their children to. Seriously... they expressed an interest in sending their children to a school, but it's not likely they ever intended to send their children there? None of them? What exactly is your probability calculation based on?
The number of people who express an interest in sending their children to a school is a criterion the DoE uses in assigning patronage. They certainly don't allocate solely on that basis; your own examples of DoE selections show that the DoE leans towards diversity in selection.
So a DoE built school may represent the kind of school most local parents want. As you yourself have shown, it may also represent the kind of diverse school which would increase the level of choice available to all parents in the area; the DoE doesn't always (or even usually) choose a patron based entirely on the expressed preferences of parents.
Even so, nothing is imposed on either the majority or minority of parents in the area; it is still entirely their choice how they choose to educate their children. They are not obliged to use any of the schools the DoE provides.
The very notion that 'the patronage of the school for minorities is thus based on a lie' is ridiculous; what patronage of the school for minorities? What lie? Whoever said there should be a patronage of a school for minorities?
That this can then somehow be imagined to lead to the frankly ludicrous assertion that the school therefore is a religious school catering specifically for kids that aren't members of that religion, and has the purpose of converting them to it (your description of a missionary school, remember) is simply an amazing leap worthy of an Olympic long jump record attempt.0 -
Advertisement
-
Certainly was the case when I made my communion, and that was more than a few decades ago. I can't say I had enough foresight to be thinking about it a year in advance, but I recall there were three aspects;So was speaking to my nephew yesterday about his upcoming communion, I've never actually talking about religion and his thoughts on it before.
Anyway, he mentioned how the stuff said in mass is just silly but he's looking forward to the money next year. He did consider not doing the communion for awhile because he see's the mass stuff as stupid and pointless but then he said he didn't want to miss out on the money.
Am curious how many kids doing the communion are doing it for the money like him?
1) A giant pile of money. Huge. Bigger than all my pockets, it went into 'a bank account' for me; I expect to be very rich when I find out where it is. Though I also recall we had more than the usual number of meat dinners for a few weeks after.
2) My first suit. Of which I am glad few pictures remain.
3) A slap up dinner at my posh aunts. Probably the most lasting feature; the first time I ever ate a chocolate eclair and I still love them.0 -
We all know she was way down at the bottom of the waiting list because she was the wrong religion. Just because they don't specifically write it in the letter of refusal doesn't mean it's not so.That's literally not true though; nobody said she was sent to the school because she was not a bona fide RC child.
"On November 14th, 2014, they got a letter from the first school saying there was no place for Eva". Nothing about her being not a bona fide RC child; just no place.
If you can't admit this, there is little point in you taking part in this discussion.
Read this again....nothing is imposed on either the majority or minority of parents in the area...
The very notion that 'the patronage of the school for minorities is thus based on a lie' is ridiculous; what patronage of the school for minorities? What lie? Whoever said there should be a patronage of a school for minorities?...
That this can then somehow be imagined to lead to the frankly ludicrous assertion that the school therefore is a religious school catering specifically for kids that aren't members of that religion, and has the purpose of converting them to it (your description of a missionary school, remember) is simply an amazing leap worthy of an Olympic long jump record attempt.
The salient points (even bearing in mind the article may be slightly out of date at this stage);
1. Roughly 10% of the students in the new school have Irish parents while the other 90% would have parents who have immigrated into Ireland.
2.The school is currently housed in temporary accommodation.
3.There are three (other) catholic primary schools in the catchment area in Ladyswell, St Patrick’s and St Luke’s.
4.Two patrons actively canvassed parents to support their bid for patronage of the new school, Le Chéile and Educate Together. However, "local parents" predominantly favoured Le Chéile.
5."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.”
6. "That is very much what catholic education is about – being open to everybody."
* for the "nominally catholic" 10% of pupils, read "atheist or agnostic".
Now I suppose you are going to tell me that these parents felt there was a void in their own lives, and they really really wanted a catholic education for their kids so that the kids could be helped to see the light.
And none of the parents who sent their their kids to the other three (well established) RC schools voted for the catholic ethos of the new school, which their kids do not attend.0 -
Two guys who play GAA for Donegal, Kevin Cassidy and Eamonn McGee, had a a twitterspat last month about catholic selection criteria for schools.
http://www.irishnews.com/news/2015/10/02/news/donegal-gaa-stars-in-twitter-religion-row-279966/
The guy whose religion benefits from religious control of access really can't see what the problem is and just wants the other guy to shut up:
McGee - Sad to see in this day and age religion being used as a selection criteria in schools. Is there any genuine argument in having it this way?
Cassidy - your religious comments are getting tiresome. Did you not go around coaching in Catholic schools?? You had no issue then!
McGee - I'm sorry Cass I can't connect the dots on that last tweet, me coaching in schools and their admission policy/ethos aren't related?
Cassidy - my point being is that I never heard you bringing it up with the principal in the staff room? Looking after number one€€€
McGee - just out of interest would you agree with it being used as a selection criteria for schools? Do you think its fair?
[...]
Cassidy - like I said its getting tiresome 1 week it's Schools next it's the Pope then it's Mass!! U should stop now
I'm pretty sure that's a wind-up rather than a spat.0 -
No, we don't. You imagine it, because it suits your point of view. But there is no factual basis presented for what you're imagining. Pressing your fantasies on others is not a rational basis for you to continue taking part in this discussion; they're only going to keep being pointed out as fantasies.We all know she was way down at the bottom of the waiting list because she was the wrong religion. Just because they don't specifically write it in the letter of refusal doesn't mean it's not so.
If you can't admit this, there is little point in you taking part in this discussion.
So, firstly, we're still remembering this is not the school Eva is going to, right? Because the article doesn't say what school she's going to. This is another school you're using to illustrate your idea that there are schools run by religious orders catering specifically for children not of their religion in order to convert them. Despite the fact that in your bullet points there's no evidence that the school caters specifically for children not of that religion (since it says it does have Catholic & Christian students), only that the majority of the pupils aren't Catholic, and no evidence of any attempts to convert them either. In fact evidence they feel the various religions should learn from one another. Syncretism is rarely an aid to proselytism I would have thought.Read this again. The salient points (even bearing in mind the article may be slightly out of date at this stage);
1. Roughly 10% of the students in the new school have Irish parents while the other 90% would have parents who have immigrated into Ireland.
2.The school is currently housed in temporary accommodation.
3.There are three (other) catholic primary schools in the catchment area in Ladyswell, St Patrick’s and St Luke’s.
4.Two patrons actively canvassed parents to support their bid for patronage of the new school, Le Chéile and Educate Together. However, "local parents" predominantly favoured Le Chéile.
5."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.”
6. "That is very much what catholic education is about – being open to everybody."
* for the "nominally catholic" 10% of pupils, read "atheist or agnostic".
And why would we read nominally catholic as atheist or agnostic? Why wouldn't we read it as nominally catholic, just like they say they are? Is it because you want to pretend there are no catholics there? Even nominal ones?
Suppose away, it seems to be becoming your forte. What I will tell you instead though, is what we actually know from the piece; that local parents predominantly favoured Le Chéile over other patrons. They could have favoured Educate Together, but they didn't. Still somewhat at odds of your notion of the school being imposed on them I'd say.Now I suppose you are going to tell me that these parents felt there was a void in their own lives, and they really really wanted a catholic education for their kids so that the kids could be helped to see the light.
I don't think the article says that either; you're supposing again, aren't you? In fairness, we know no parents voted for the ethos of any school, because there are no votes. But we know from other patronage assessments that expressions of interest from parents of children already with places in schools in the area aren't included; quite rightly since they already have school places.And none of the parents who sent their their kids to the other three (well established) RC schools voted for the catholic ethos of the new school, which their kids do not attend.0 -
Do you realise how ridiculous that statement sounds?...there's no evidence that the school caters specifically for children not of that religion (since it says it does have Catholic & Christian students), only that the majority of the pupils aren't Catholic..
Bearing in mind the "nominal catholics" in the school don't go to mass and apparently have no baptismal certificates, so perhaps "lapsed catholics" or "agnostics" would be a fairer description. "Christian" is a code word for "protestants". I'm guessing most would be some sort of African Pentecostal, as that group were previously trying to get their own school allocated in the same area. There is no reason to think either the lapsed catholics or the pentecostals would value RC religious instruction as part of the school day.
That's the total of local parents with pre-school kids. Not the minority of local parents who would actually be using the school...local parents predominantly favoured Le Chéile over other patrons. They could have favoured Educate Together, but they didn't. Still somewhat at odds of your notion of the school being imposed on them I'd say.
Parents generally receive the letter of acceptance in the year before the child starts school. Whereas the Dept of Education starts their procedure for a new school a couple of years before it opens. Therefore, the Dept. could not exclude the bona fide RC parents from the process, even though those parents would be 99% sure of getting a place in the more established schools. Once they get that final offer, they are likely to take it up, rather than drive half an hour to a school in a portacabin full of foreigners "children whose first language may not be English".But we know from other patronage assessments that expressions of interest from parents of children already with places in schools in the area aren't included; quite rightly since they already have school places.
Its not rocket science to sort this out. I see two possible solutions;
1. Ideally, a system of publicly funded non-religious schools, open to everyone. Private religious schools for those who don't want to mix with the others.
2. Continue the segregated patronage model, but with a fair allocation of school places.
Lets say (as in the north Dublin school example we were discussing) there are 3 x RC schools and I x ET school already. Increasing population means a new school is needed. Supposing the "expressions of interest" from pre-schoolers indicates that 60% favour RC and 40% favour the ET model (and these are simplistic figures for illustrative purposes only)
That would be a clear majority in favour of RC, so a simplistic analysis would say give the new school to them. A more reasoned analysis takes into account the existing schools, even though school places have not yet been allocated for the year the new school will open.
Therefore, allocate 20% of the vote to each of the 5 schools. Looking at it this way, the RC already has its 3 schools, which is already a fair representation of its 60%. ET would need to get a second school to represent its 40%.0 -
It can be difficult or impossible to distinguish a religious person being serious from somebody parodying religion.I'm pretty sure that's a wind-up rather than a spat.
There's even a law which describes this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
In the case of the amusingly-named Mr McGee, I believe he has past form in demanding exclusive privileges for his religious views, so no, I don't believe he's taking the micky.0 -
I realise it's ridiculous to claim that because a school doesn't have a majority of catholic pupils, it therefore must cater specifically for non catholic children, certainly. Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that....Do you realise how ridiculous that statement sounds?
If you can produce something from the school that says it caters specifically for non catholic chaildren (with the purpose of converting them don't forget) that might add some weight to your supposition.
Did they mention they didn't have baptismal certifiates? I'm quite certain they didn't. Apparently is too much of a stretch I'm afraid. How about 'in Recedites imagination'? I think the description 'nominal catholics' that actually is used by the school who knows at least something about them is probably the most appropriate until you can bring some more evidence to bear.Bearing in mind the "nominal catholics" in the school don't go to mass and apparently have no baptismal certificates, so perhaps "lapsed catholics" or "agnostics" would be a fairer description.
Christian is a word for Christian, not code at all. Such imagination! It covers catholics, protestants, evangelics, the lot. All Christians. The only reason I can think of that they might value RC religious instruction is that they expressed a preference for Le Cheile over Educate Together. Slightly indicative of preference I'd say."Christian" is a code word for "protestants". I'm guessing most would be some sort of African Pentecostal, as that group were previously trying to get their own school allocated in the same area. There is no reason to think either the lapsed catholics or the pentecostals would value RC religious instruction as part of the school day.
Is it? Can you present the data? The article tells us that local parents predominantly favoured Le Chéile. The examples you've provided show the DoE excludes expressions of preference from parents whose children have school places. Which makes it seem to me that the only preferences considered were those of local parents who could actually use the school.That's the total of local parents with pre-school kids. Not the minority of local parents who would actually be using the school.
So.. any data to back this elaborate fantasy up? Did a huge number of 'bona fide' RC parents choose other schools other than the one they expressed a preference for? Any evidence at all that these racist individuals realised suddenly that they weren't local after all despite what the DoE thought and would have to drive half an hour to school?Parents generally receive the letter of acceptance in the year before the child starts school. Whereas the Dept of Education starts their procedure for a new school a couple of years before it opens. Therefore, the Dept. could not exclude the bona fide RC parents from the process, even though those parents would be 99% sure of getting a place in the more established schools. Once they get that final offer, they are likely to take it up, rather than drive half an hour to a school in a portacabin full of foreigners "children whose first language may not be English"..
Or are you still, literally, just making up stories?
Of course not, but I don't think anyone will want to pay for your model. There simply aren't millions of euros lying around to buy a system of publicly funded non-religious schools, and there's no evidence that most people want them. So an even simpler solution is; those that want non-religious open to everyone schools should build them. If there are enough pupils attending, they'll receive public funding. If they can't afford to build them, they should apply for patronage of new schools being built by the DoE; if there's enough public support, they will also have the diversity advantage, and the school will open.Its not rocket science to sort this out. <...>
I'll certainly applaud anyone who gives it a go.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26428
Of course not, but I don't think anyone will want to pay for your model. There simply aren't millions of euros lying around to buy a system of publicly funded non-religious schools, and there's no evidence that most people want them. So an even simpler solution is; those that want non-religious open to everyone schools should build them. If there are enough pupils attending, they'll receive public funding. If they can't afford to build them, they should apply for patronage of new schools being built by the DoE; if there's enough public support, they will also have the diversity advantage, and the school will open..
A far more sensible model given that church and state are supposed to be separate is require all schools to not give any special treatment to any religion above another (or none) if the state funds the school.
If a parents wants religion then let them use the church or mosque...after all that's why they exist.
Its not the Irish governments job to pay for religious beliefs to be educated, thats upto parents and religious organizations..if the parents want to involve the religious organisations. Nobody is stopping religious organizations teaching children...this just never should be done at the tax payer expense.
I object to tax payer funds being wasted on teaching the catholic faith as much as I'd object to tax payer money being wasted teaching the Scientology faith. They are both religions after all.
If of course a catholic school etc wants to only allow catholics then by all means they can do this, but the should not be funded by the state in such a situation as its misuse of public funds otherwise.0 -
It can be difficult or impossible to distinguish a religious person being serious from somebody parodying religion.
There's even a law which describes this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
In the case of the amusingly-named Mr McGee, I believe he has past form in demanding exclusive privileges for his religious views, so no, I don't believe he's taking the micky.
Wat?
The amusingly-named McGee was an outspoken supporter of marriage equality and is now lamenting the fact that religion is being used as a criterion for school access.
You can see that in the bit where he says
"Sad to see in this day and age religion being used as a selection criteria in schools. Is there any genuine argument in having it this way?"
Cassidy is a clubmate and good friend of McGee's, and is winding him up about the fact that he regularly uses Twitter to voice liberal notions. He often does.0 -
Church and State are supposed to be separate in specific ways which do not include the way education currently provided though. I've no objection to the State equally funding non religious schools if that's what parents want, but I do object to taking away funding from religious schools that parents want.A far more sensible model given that church and state are supposed to be separate is require all schools to not give any special treatment to any religion above another (or none) if the state funds the school.
Sure. And let them provide religious education as they're Constitutionally entitled to do on the same basis as everyone else; in their preferred ethos schools.If a parents wants religion then let them use the church or mosque...after all that's why they exist.
Well, it is. The State is obliged to provide for education; that includes religious education. Certainly, it's not obliged to pay for religious instruction.Its not the Irish governments job to pay for religious beliefs to be educated, thats upto parents and religious organizations..if the parents want to involve the religious organisations. Nobody is stopping religious organizations teaching children...this just never should be done at the tax payer expense.
Since you presumably don't subscribe to a religion, that's not hard to believe. You can imagine thought that those that do, may well approve of tax payer funds being used to ensure peoples souls are saved. If there's more of them than there are of you, I think I know who's likely to win.I object to tax payer funds being wasted on teaching the catholic faith as much as I'd object to tax payer money being wasted teaching the Scientology faith. They are both religions after all.
It's not a misuse though. The State has quite specific obligations with regard to how it provides for education. You may not like them but it's not misuse if it's fulfilling its obligations.If of course a catholic school etc wants to only allow catholics then by all means they can do this, but the should not be funded by the state in such a situation as its misuse of public funds otherwise.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fat finger error - please substitute "Cassidy" for "McGee" in that last post.Wat? [...] winding him up [...]
I don't immediately see anything funny about that exchange, nor about religion being used to discriminate against children.
Can you let us know please, what the funny side of this is?0 -
Fat finger error - please substitute "Cassidy" for "McGee" in that last post.
I don't immediately see anything funny about that exchange, nor about religion being used to discriminate against children.
Can you let us know please, what the funny side of this is?
How did you make a fat finger error typing 'Cassidy' instead of 'McGee' when you made a point of laughing about the name 'McGee'?
Rather than a fat finger error, I suspect you did an extremely limited amount of skimming of the Twitter conversation and article you posted, got the wrong end of the stick and then ploughed on by accusing the wrong guy of undefined past instances of demanding religious privileges.
I'd be very surprised if Cassidy ever made any such demands either but would be interested in hearing more about them.0 -
Because when writing my reply, I very briefly scimmed the conversation I spend some time exacting from Twitter yesterday and inadvertently switched the names. It's unclear to me why a simple transpositional error with respect to the names of two Donegal GAA players whom I've never met is such an overwhelmingly important issue for you. And yes, the name McGee unfortunately can be quite funny to anybody familiar with English as she is spoke in Ireland - PM me if you don't get the gag.How did you make a fat finger error typing 'Cassidy' instead of 'McGee' when you made a point of laughing about the name 'McGee'?
Since I wrote the original message which I then (mis)quoted, you might want to rephrase your comments.Rather than a fat finger error, I suspect you did an extremely limited amount of skimming of the Twitter conversation and article you posted, got the wrong end of the stick and then ploughed on by accusing the wrong guy of undefined past instances of demanding religious privileges.
But all that's to address so much bluster on your part. Do you want to address the substantive issue of religious discrimination in Irish schools or do you - like Mr Cassidy - prefer to avoid discussing the issue?0 -
Because when writing my reply, I very briefly scimmed the conversation I spend some time exacting from Twitter yesterday and inadvertently switched the names. It's unclear to me why a simple transpositional error with respect to the names of two Donegal GAA players whom I've never met is such an overwhelmingly important issue for you. And yes, the name McGee unfortunately can be quite funny to anybody familiar with English as she is spoke in Ireland - PM me if you don't get the gag.Since I wrote the original message which I then (mis)quoted, you might want to rephrase your comments.
But all that's to address so much bluster on your part. Do you want to address the substantive issue of religious discrimination in Irish schools or do you - like Mr Cassidy - prefer to avoid discussing the issue?
Your hostility is bizarre.
I'm 100% opposed to religious patronage of schools, as McGee is as far as I know.
Would you care to comment any further on the demands for exclusive privileges for his religious views McGee and/or Cassidy have made in the past?0 -
We're discussing Cassidy as you might recall from an earlier post:I'm 100% opposed to religious patronage of schools, as McGee is as far as I know.[...] please substitute "Cassidy" for "McGee" in that last post.[...]
Do you also oppose religious discrimination as well? If so, then - well - it seems like we agree with each other. And with Mr McGee, though not Mr Cassidy.I'm 100% opposed to religious patronage of schools[...]0 -
No baptism, no school: Irish parents fight for equal access to education http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/no-baptism-no-school-irish-parents-fight-for-equal-access-to-educationA church spokesperson said it was “not the function of the Catholic church to provide education for all of Irish society” and it was “unfortunate that Catholic schools are simply not big enough to cater for the numbers who wish to enrol”. The Irish government should consider building more schools or extending existing ones0
-
I said that it was a missionary school, not that it excludes RC pupils. A missionary school has two objectives in common with a normal faith school; to provide a general education, and to provide religious instruction. Both objectives are deliberately intertwined. The unique characteristic of the missionary school is that its pupils are predominantly not of the faith background that is being taught in the school.If you can produce something from the school that says it caters specifically for non catholic children (with the purpose of converting them don't forget) that might add some weight to your supposition.
The school mentioned above fits that description. The admissions policy has been made multi-denominational but the faith formation is not. This means that it acts as a collecting or dumping ground for those who have been rejected by the other 3 RC schools in the area which do operate an RC prioritised admissions policy.
To add further insult, the RCC provide nothing to the missionary school except their doctrine. No salaries, no buildings, not even a site. Its located in sub-standard temporary accommodation. So it is in fact a state missionary school.
I'm pretty sure that is unconstitutional.
I know that, but "Christian" is used as a code word in the Orwellian church-speak language of those who seek to maintain RC religious instruction within the state school system. It describes any Christian who does not accept that the RCC is the one true religion. Notwithstanding the fact that there is already a word for that; protestant.Christian is a word for Christian, not code at all. Such imagination! It covers catholics, protestants, evangelics, the lot. All Christians.
When the school principle said "We have Muslims students, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Christians and a small percentage of Catholic students" she placed "Christians" in a separate category to "Catholics". This is symptomatic of the controlling "majority religion" mentality. Its similar to the way that "Christians" and "Catholics" are grouped separately in the proposed new VEC/ETB primary school model. That is designed to allow the "main" class in an ETB school to receive the normal RC communion classes and other faith formation activities, while any minorities in the school are removed to a separate area. Ostensibly, no special treatment is given to the "catholics", even if this is not the case in reality. Whereas if RC were grouped with the other Christians, specific RC doctrine could not be taught. Only the more general multi-denominational Christian teachings would be allowed.
It would cost less than the current system. The total number of schools in the country would be reduced, because in some areas multiple small schools under different patronages could be consolidated into fewer schools, with better facilities... but I don't think anyone will want to pay for your model. There simply aren't millions of euros lying around to buy a system of publicly funded non-religious schools..0 -
The current system, balkanised on religion, gender, and let's be honest here, snobbery too, is the worst of all worlds.
Scrap the cap!
0 -
You previously characterised your notion of a missionary school as "when a religious organisation manages a religious school which specifically caters for kids who have yet to be converted to that religion". If it's a Catholic missionary school, it's excluding RC pupils according to your definition; they're specifically not being catered for. Redefining it just to try and vaguely match the only school you've produced as an example probably won't help the definition catch on I suspect.I said that it was a missionary school, not that it excludes RC pupils. A missionary school has two objectives in common with a normal faith school; to provide a general education, and to provide religious instruction. Both objectives are deliberately intertwined. The unique characteristic of the missionary school is that its pupils are predominantly not of the faith background that is being taught in the school.
Well, it comes closer to your new description. However,the fact that its pupils are predominantly not of the faith background that is being taught in the school cannot be attributed to the school; they've already said the school’s enrolment policy is not based on religious affiliation. Not knowing that all or none of their pupils may be participants in the faith of the school already is a very very poor basis for converting them, don't you think?The school mentioned above fits that description. The admissions policy has been made multi-denominational but the faith formation is not. This means that it acts as a collecting or dumping ground for those who have been rejected by the other 3 RC schools in the area which do operate an RC prioritised admissions policy.
However, what have the school said about their faith formation? We know they've said "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."
We know Le Cheile themselves say in their RE Policy Template "The main focus of the Le Cheile Vision statement is on the spiritual and faith formation hopes of the Religious Congregations which build on the excellence of a general education", so at least we know they put general education before spiritual and faith formation. Good news there for pupils.... if not so much for missionary aspirations.
They also say:
"The work of Faith Formation is through invitation, not coercion."
This is not looking great for the missionary view, but maybe they're just being cunning, and suckering the heathens in.
But when they say "Some students from other faiths and from other Christian denominations will have enrolled in the school. Their different traditions will be respected. They will be encouraged to grow in knowledge and appreciation of their own traditions."
you kind of have to think that's pretty poor proselytising there. I mean, not even going after the other Christians? This is really poor thinking for anyone looking to earn the term 'missionary'.
So, unless the school has gone rogue on Le Cheile, the multi denominational faith formation doesn't really seem all that questionable. In fact, for a Catholic Ethos school, it strikes me as positively ecumenical...
And you'll notice I'm not relying on suppositions or extrapolations here; I'm giving you the statements direct from the people involved.
Except we know from what's been posted on this thread already that patrons are required by the State to contribute to the running costs of the schools. And Le Cheile obviously contribute at very least in terms of school policy; in this particular instance a policy that is the antithesis of missionary schooling. So it's not, in fact, a state missionary school, really, is it? If you consider the facts, rather than making them up, that is.To add further insult, the RCC provide nothing to the missionary school except their doctrine. No salaries, no buildings, not even a site. Its located in sub-standard temporary accommodation. So it is in fact a state missionary school. I'm pretty sure that is unconstitutional.
Still, if it is unConstitutional, at least one of those so vehemently intent on removing religious patronage would be in a position to win a Supreme Court challenge, right? I look forward to seeing the reporting on it.
A language that you are privy too despite not being a member of this group, but the rest of us aren't? And like the illuminati, members throw it into the plain sight of newspaper articles so they call see their hidden hands at work? I think the forum you're looking for is over here....I know that, but "Christian" is used as a code word in the Orwellian church-speak language of those who seek to maintain RC religious instruction within the state school system. It describes any Christian who does not accept that the RCC is the one true religion. Notwithstanding the fact that there is already a word for that; protestant.
Maybe. Might it be indicative of the fact that she is the Principle of a Catholic Ethos school that acknowledges the respect it owes to other Christian traditions who are represented in her school? I think it might.When the school principle said "We have Muslims students, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Christians and a small percentage of Catholic students" she placed "Christians" in a separate category to "Catholics". This is symptomatic of the controlling "majority religion" mentality.
Are you going to show us a document that sets out this 'design'? Or is this just more supposition? Again?Its similar to the way that "Christians" and "Catholics" are grouped separately in the proposed new VEC/ETB primary school model. That is designed to allow the "main" class in an ETB school to receive the normal RC communion classes and other faith formation activities, while any minorities in the school are removed to a separate area.
Well, it could, but it would be tricky. Just like in the not-really-a-missionary-school-at-all example you provided it appears that ostensibly, no special treatment is given to the "Muslims", "Hindus", "Buddhists", "Mormons", or "Christians" if they happen to be the "main" class, even if this is not the case in reality.Ostensibly, no special treatment is given to the "catholics", even if this is not the case in reality. Whereas if RC were grouped with the other Christians, specific RC doctrine could not be taught. Only the more general multi-denominational Christian teachings would be allowed.
That seems extraordinarily unlikely; firstly there would be no contributions coming in from patrons any more, so the State would have to stump up that portion. Even massively reducing the number of schools (that's likely to be popular with parents!) there will still be a very substantial outlay to obtain sufficient property to meet the need for schools; we know over 90% of schools are run by religious patrons so if even half of those are on property not owned by the State, that's hundreds of millions in capital outlay. And if you're reducing the number of schools, many State owned schools won't have sufficient capacity, so they'll either have to be expanded or rebuilt elsewhere, which won't be cheap either. Sorry, even a cursory glance suggests your notion that it would cost less than the current system is pretty specious.It would cost less than the current system. The total number of schools in the country would be reduced, because in some areas multiple small schools under different patronages could be consolidated into fewer schools, with better facilities.0 -
Advertisement
-
From the Guardian yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/no-baptism-no-school-irish-parents-fight-for-equal-access-to-education?CMP=twt_gu
Nothing like a good bit of international embarrassment to get Irish politicians moving a bit?0
Advertisement