NCCA - Education about Religions and Beliefs and Ethics (ERB) - Consultation

expectationlost

SBP article saying gay marriage will be taught about in primary schools mentions Education about Religions and Beliefs and Ethics (ERB). http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/Gay+marriage+to+be+taught+in+primary+school+religion+classes/id/2f93be1a-7788-477c-b275-3d2faf17e8f3 (paywall)

the report of the Forum and Patronage and Pluralism recommended an actual religion and ethics curriculum as a discrete subject

7.2 The Curriculum Guidelines
The Advisory Group recommends that the introduction to the Primary Curriculum should be revised to ensure that, while the general curriculum remains integrated, provision is made for denominational religious education/faith formation to be taught as a discrete subject.

P 9 Education about Religion and Beliefs (ERB), and Ethics

The Advisory Group has a particular concern for those children who do not participate in religious programmes in denominational schools. They may go through their primary schooling without any ERB and ethical education. For these children, the proposed programmes in ERB and Ethics are of central importance

https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector/The-Forum-on-Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector-Report-of-the-Forums-Advisory-Group.pdf

Education Officer for Education about Religions and Beliefs (ERB) and Ethics in Primary
Education NCCA job ad http://www.ncca.ie/en/file/primary/pdf/EO_InformationSheet_Jan2015Final.pdf

refferred in some places as ERB and Ethics http://midwesthumanists.com/2015/03/19/minister-for-education-responds-to-our-request-for-state-secular-schools-and-we-reply/

where is this NCCA ERB consultation paper https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-06-09a.2366&s=ERB#g2368.r

Atheist Ireland wants an opt-out of the ERB because despite its supposed aim, schools are still required under Rule 68 to teach faith during entire school curriculum

The NCCA has a positive obligation to protect the human rights of the non-religious in the education system. We cannot see how this course will promote respect for our human rights, given the fact that the NCCA have no power to ensure that schools deliver this course in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner and in accordance with the Toledo Guiding Principles and human rights law.

http://atheist.ie/2015/04/the-national-council-for-curriculum-assessment-has-a-positive-obligation-to-protect-human-rights/

St Patrick College argue against ERB as a 'discrete subject' from the opposite side http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector/Patronage-Forum-Submissions-November-2011-/Organisations-November-2011/St-Patrick%E2%80%99s-College-additional.pdf

Religious education not taken seriously says academic Essay - Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/religious-education-not-taken-seriously-says-study-1.2305732
Ethics vs faith formation

The authors cite, for example, the failure to develop a planned programme on Education about Religion and Beliefs (ERB) as well as ethics “to ensure that children can receive education ‘about religions’ as opposed to faith formation in primary schools”.An education officer was appointed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in summer 2013 but progress has been “slow to date and it is difficult to predict when a national ERB programme will be available”.

http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/2012/11/18/education-questions/

consutaltion involves stakeholders but not the public https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-03-31a.1108&s=ERB#g1110.r

Absolam

What point are you making?

expectationlost

A consultation process on the new draft curriculum for primary schools will begin in October.

http://www.herald.ie/news/samesex-marriage-issues-to-be-covered-in-religious-classes-31438560.html

Ms O'Sullivan was speaking about the new curriculum on "education about religions and beliefs and ethics".
"I haven't seen the curriculum yet, but I would imagine that it will look at the factual situations of, for example, marriage equality, but also of religions," she said in an interview with the Sunday Business Post.

oh missed it said October

Shrap

Hmm. Guess we'll see how this will go over with RCC ethos schools, as it will be covering critical thinking and will explore in detail the emergence of the major religions, plus exploring ethics separately from religion.

Best get on there and have your say peeps. Can imagine there will be plenty of opposition to this subject.

http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education/Primary-Education/Primary_Developments/ERB-and-E/Developments/Consultation/Consultation.html

Survey:
General Public/Other
Parent/Guardian
Teacher/Third Level Educator

Shrap

Nugent and Quinn on newstalk talking about it with Pat now....

oldrnwisr

Shrap wrote: »

Hmm. Guess we'll see how this will go over with RCC ethos schools, as it will be covering critical thinking and will explore in detail the emergence of the major religions, plus exploring ethics separately from religion.

Best get on there and have your say peeps. Can imagine there will be plenty of opposition to this subject.

http://www.ncca.ie/en/Curriculum_and_Assessment/Early_Childhood_and_Primary_Education/Primary-Education/Primary_Developments/ERB-and-E/Developments/Consultation/Consultation.html

Survey:
General Public/Other
Parent/Guardian
Teacher/Third Level Educator

Done. I have to say though a lot of the questions on the survey and the options at the end seem a bit vague and new-agey, lots of fondling your inner child and all that. I don't know about anyone else that's been through the survey but it all reeks of avoiding the elephant in the room if you ask me. Of the dozen or so options at the end only one (Critical thinking skills) seems like it would have any real impact on how religion is taught in schools.

Shrap

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Done. I have to say though a lot of the questions on the survey and the options at the end seem a bit vague and new-agey, lots of fondling your inner child and all that. I don't know about anyone else that's been through the survey but it all reeks of avoiding the elephant in the room if you ask me. Of the dozen or so options at the end only one (Critical thinking skills) seems like it would have any real impact on how religion is taught in schools.

Yes, agreed and I mentioned that in the comment section. There's a lot of hand-wavy "spirituality" being alluded to in the consultation paper (which of course, I read after completing the survey despite being advised to read it beforehand, or I'd have picked a few holes in it). From the paper, the NCCA appear to be selling it to parents through the "personal development" and "self-confidence" angles.

Michael Nugent was saying just now how it isn't even implementable though under the current constitutional interpretation that schools are obliged to integrate their religious ethos, so I can't see this working out at all well. Plus, there's no room for it in the curriculum unless non-curricular faith formation was dropped tbh and I can't see that happening either, so we can certainly expect opposition from already pressurised teachers.

Cabaal

Only way I see this working is if they drop the current catholic religion class in primary schools and replace it with an all faiths religion class, which of course isn't going to happen.

Hotblack Desiato

Problem : Too much religion in schools.

Solution : More religion in schools :rolleyes:

Absolam

I kind of thought all the early questions in the questionnaire were pretty pointless; were any of them things you wouldn't strongly agree a child should develop?
I also didn't think critical thinking is the most obvious skill for an Ethics, Religions and Beliefs class, since you'd expect that to be fostered in the sciences classes anyway?
I thought:
Personal responsibility
Developing a sense of conscience
Understanding rights and responsibilities
Understanding the impact of prejudice and discrimination
Developing empathy
would be more relevant, at least from an ethical point of view.

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

I also didn't think critical thinking is the most obvious skill for an Ethics, Religions and Beliefs class, since you'd expect that to be fostered in the sciences classes anyway?

I think it would be a very different beast in each of those classes. Out of that list IMO it would be most usefully employed in examining the relative "righteousness" of religions (and will be the one big sticking point with the RCC I shouldn't wonder, as they tend not to like the notion that there isn't but one true god, but many, or none even.....) and the validity of their claims.

"Questioning" also. We know how our Jesuitical style school indoctrination loves questioning I think it would be wonderful if this class specifically encouraged questioning beliefs, but I'm not sure any religious would agree with me.....

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

I also didn't think critical thinking is the most obvious skill for an Ethics, Religions and Beliefs class, since you'd expect that to be fostered in the sciences classes anyway?

Shrap wrote: »

I think it would be a very different beast in each of those classes.

This.

The scientific method employs critical thinking in a fairly narrow way - treat every claim as falsifiable and seek to verify it through empirical observation. But science basically deals with objective claims about the material universe. But in a field like ethics or politics or philosophy - in anything that involves making judgments about values - you'll apply critical thinking skills more broadly; for instance, asking yourself "why does he believe this?" or "why does he want me to believe this?". (Or, for that matter "why am I reluctant to accept this belief/eager to accept this belief"?) While you can ask such questions about scientific propositions, doing so doesn't really form a large part of the implementation of the scientific method.

Shrap wrote: »

I think it would be wonderful if this class specifically encouraged questioning beliefs, but I'm not sure any religious would agree with me.....

I would.

Young people are going to question their beliefs anyway; it's part of growing up and becoming an adult. We should give them the tools to question them meaningfully and effectively.

Shrap

Well. An atypical Jesuit response if ever I saw one :rolleyes:.

Posted on the school patronage thread, but was clearly enunciated by the good archbishop in relation to the ERB consultation.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/study-of-religion-devoid-of-faith-blinkered-says-archbishop-1.2418766

At the end he seems to be implying that the "study of religion which is entirely limited to the history and the sociology of religion" (which I don't think is actually being suggested by anyone but him) would be dangerously close to "Imposing a specific political programme in the name of God is to make yourself into God", ie. IMO he has near as dammit said it will clash with RC School ethos to study religion minus the faith.

Gosh. Wonder what will happen next? I predict a counter article presenting an even wishy-washier version of what the NCCA means to do than is in their soft-soaping paper, and a bunch of teachers saying we can't teach more religion, no time.

Hotblack Desiato

Religions are obliged to respect the legitimate autonomy of the secular order and of reason. Imposing a specific political programme in the name of God is to make yourself into God.

But clearly this does not extend to foregoing the use of state funds to indoctrinate children into his religion. Oh no.

lazygal

This will turn into the woeful goodness me goodness you crap peddled in ETB schools.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

"Questioning" also. We know how our Jesuitical style school indoctrination loves questioning I think it would be wonderful if this class specifically encouraged questioning beliefs, but I'm not sure any religious would agree with me.....

Shrap wrote: »

Well. An atypical Jesuit response if ever I saw one :rolleyes:.

I always took the term "jesuitical' as meaning inclined to case based reasoning rather than rule based reasoning; an approach I would have thought very suitable to the subject of teaching morals and ethics. I certainly wouldn't have pegged 'jesuitical' as being question averse...

Shrap wrote: »

Posted on the school patronage thread, but was clearly enunciated by the good archbishop in relation to the ERB consultation.
At the end he seems to be implying that the "study of religion which is entirely limited to the history and the sociology of religion" (which I don't think is actually being suggested by anyone but him) would be dangerously close to "Imposing a specific political programme in the name of God is to make yourself into God", ie. IMO he has near as dammit said it will clash with RC School ethos to study religion minus the faith.

I think by omitting the middle of his statement you've re-contextualised what he said though. He wasn't saying that the study of religion which is entirely limited to the history and the sociology of religion would be dangerously close to imposing a specific political programme in the name of God is to make yourself into God.
His point about making yourself into God was a criticism of religious fundamentalists imposing political programmes, an entirely separate point from his criticism of teaching religion without a religious context at the beginning of his statement.

Shrap wrote: »

Gosh. Wonder what will happen next? I predict a counter article presenting an even wishy-washier version of what the NCCA means to do than is in their soft-soaping paper, and a bunch of teachers saying we can't teach more religion, no time.

Shouldn't we hope there'll be plenty of articles presenting both sides of the discussion? That way parents may apply informed case based approaches to the question

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

I always took the term "jesuitical' as meaning inclined to case based reasoning rather than rule based reasoning; an approach I would have thought very suitable to the subject of teaching morals and ethics. I certainly wouldn't have pegged 'jesuitical' as being question averse...

You'd have been wrong then. Jesuitical reasoning/argument is defined by being question averse, and entirely answer averse (reminding me of someone not a million miles from this conversation :pac: ).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jesuitical
adjective
1.
of or relating to Jesuits or Jesuitism.
2.
(often lowercase) practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/1996/06/jesuitical_vs_talmudic.html
"Very early, owing in part to English Protestant propagandists, the word "Jesuitical" came to characterize a form of argument designed less to seek the truth than to make a case, a form of argument that was aggressive and clever but perhaps not always sincere--indeed, one that was at times cunningly equivocal or downright deceitful."

I think by omitting the middle of his statement you've re-contextualised what he said though. He wasn't saying that the study of religion which is entirely limited to the history and the sociology of religion would be dangerously close to imposing a specific political programme in the name of God is to make yourself into God.
His point about making yourself into God was a criticism of religious fundamentalists imposing political programmes, an entirely separate point from his criticism of teaching religion without a religious context at the beginning of his statement.

Are you sure about all that Absolam?! I mean, I at least put "IMO" to my conjecture. Put it this way to you, what he said is most definitely and unhelpfully open to interpretation (in the very jesuitical manner that his pronouncements always are).

Shouldn't we hope there'll be plenty of articles presenting both sides of the discussion? That way parents may apply informed case based approaches to the question

Certainly we should. You had no need to interpret what I said in any other way.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

You'd have been wrong then. Jesuitical reasoning/argument is defined by being question averse, and entirely answer averse (reminding me of someone not a million miles from this conversation :pac: ).

And there's me thinking casuistry in ethics is case based reasoning. I guess we all live and learn eh? Still, I don't think it takes a Jesuit to point out the difference between being question and answer averse as a rule, and avoiding irrelevent questions and answers one a case by case basis :pac:

Shrap wrote: »

Are you sure about all that Absolam?! I mean, I at least put "IMO" to my conjecture. Put it this way to you, what he said is most definitely and unhelpfully open to interpretation (in the very jesuitical manner that his pronouncements always are).

I'm fairly sure, yes. There are six points between the first point you mentioned and one you connected with your own 'would be dangerously close to' at the end. I think his final point about becoming God is far clearer if presented fully:
"All faiths had “to avoid any form of fundamentalism, fundamentalism in their own faith, fundamentalism about the role of religion. Religions are obliged to respect the legitimate autonomy of the secular order and of reason. Imposing a specific political programme in the name of God is to make yourself into God.”
Don't you?

Shrap wrote: »

Certainly we should. You had no need to interpret what I said in any other way.

Isn't it great we can agree when specific then, even if your own statement was, as you say, 'jesuitically' open to interpretation

expectationlost

Sabina Higgins backs campaign for teaching philosophy in schools
New organisation set up to support teachers who wish to offer Junior Cycle short course
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/sabina-higgins-backs-campaign-for-teaching-philosophy-in-schools-1.2770953#.V8LYieC_ehE.twitter ok good who are
Philosophy Ireland?
http://philosophyireland.ie/about-us/history

Organisation

Today, Philosophy Ireland comprises a steering group of 13 committed members – volunteers who are drawn from academic philosophy and education, teaching, and community outreach, and who share the vision that philosophy is for everyone. While we remain an independent organisation we are supported by Philosophy Ireland Ambassadors, public figures who are passionate about philosophy, including Joe Humphreys (The Irish Times), and Dr William Crawley (BBC Northern Ireland, BBC Radio 4). Finally, Philosophy Ireland Affiliates include community workers, teachers, school principals, university educators, and researchers who actively share our goal of promoting philosophy in civic life.

Crawley spends an awful lot of time talking up religion and Humphreys hates atheism and his columns are pure awful.
#
Joe Humphreys gets to write an article about Philosophy Ireland without saying he's involved is there anybody checking his work at the IT?

recedite

I see Sabina Higgins is the patron of that organisation, so I presume they are going to have a fair amount of "pull" while she occupies the Aras.
It all seems very laudable. I'm not a fan of that other crowd "practical philosophy" who hold regular money-making courses, as advertised in the Irish Times now and again. A bit too much of the auld far eastern mysticism there for my liking. It seems to be a totally separate thing though.

Hotblack Desiato

Humphrey's articles have been a complete joke for a long time now. Hopefully they're monitoring the online clicks on his articles, or rather the lack of them.

They're called "Unthinkable" but would more accurately be tagged "Unreadable"

expectationlost

can a mod merge these threads http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96550421


Church's backlash blocks change in religion classes
Government education body told their proposals do not comply with Catholic vision
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/churchs-backlash-blocks-change-in-religion-classes-35249798.html

The latest Church-State ­education clash has come to light in a report from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), which is on the desk of Education Minister Richard Bruton.


The report, which is published on the NCCA website, identifies two key challenges to the introduction of an ERBE curriculum.

http://www.ncca.ie/en/ where this report ?

robindch

expectationlost wrote: »

can a mod merge these threads http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=96550421

Done

recedite

Its a funny old world when pupils cannot be taught ethics because they would be "confused" by a conflict of interests with something else they are being taught in 9 out of 10 schools.

The report "should be" on the NCCA website, but apparently isn't available to the public at the moment

recedite

Ireland's moderate Sunni Muslim representative weighs in to support the ERBE program.

All the more interesting when you consider the Saudi funded hardliners have been planning to build a shiny new mega-mosque right on his doorstep. Complete with an Islamic school which would be monumental in scale, and you can be sure any such school would be extremely opposed to implementing the ERBE program.

Pivotal moments make for interesting times.
An unholy alliance between hardline RC clergy and hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters would be something to behold. It seems this guy and his congregation are being squeezed by both.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Ireland's moderate Sunni Muslim representative weighs in to support the ERBE program.

Whilst saying "denominational schools had a right to teach their faith from their perspective", and suggesting "visits to mosques, temples and churches as well as school visits from rabbis, imams and priests during which children could put questions to them". So... fairly pro religion in schools, it has to be said.

recedite wrote: »

All the more interesting when you consider the Saudi funded hardliners have been planning to builda shiny new mega-mosque right on his doorstep. Complete with an Islamic school which would be monumental in scale, and you can be sure any such school would be extremely opposed to implementing the ERBE program.

This would be the entire building (not just the school) that was described as monumental in scale by the Fingal County Council Architect? Wasn't the purchase of the location paid for from the family funds of Dr Taufiq al-Sattar, a Dublin based neuro-surgeon, in memory of his wife and children? Wasn't the report that he had received offers of financial support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia as well as Leicester, rather than it was actually planned by 'Saudi funded hardliners'? I don't know how we'd quantify 'extremely' opposed, but is there any reason to think they'd be obligated to implement the new programme anyway?

recedite wrote: »

Pivotal moments make for interesting times.
An unholy alliance between hardline RC clergy and hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters would be something to behold. It seems this guy and his congregation are being squeezed by both.

Does it? Who are the hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters squeezing him, and how are the hardline RC clergy squeezing him?

I hardly think it will be pivotal anyway... more likely to just be another step along the way in the broadening of educational horizons in Ireland.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Does it? Who are the hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters squeezing him?

Based in the Clonskeagh mosque on the southside, and now hoping to eclipse him by expanding a very small rival operation in Blanchardstown into this new mega mosque, right on his doorstep.
And if you refer to P.3 of the document in my previous link, it says "the school is also monumental in scale"

Absolam wrote: »

and how are the hardline RC clergy squeezing him?

I'm sure there are many, but Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan was mentioned in the Indo article which was linked to a few posts back. In November 2015 he spoke in a seminar at Lismullin, the Opus Dei house in Co. Meath.
I assume you know who Opus Dei are? They don't like Muslims in their schools, or at least they give them a very low priority. And as Al Quadri says, the Muslim kids don't like being segregated from their peer group during religion classes in RC controlled schools, hence they are being turned towards fundamentalist Islamic institutions where they are made to feel welcome.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Ireland's moderate Sunni Muslim representative weighs in to support the ERBE program.

All the more interesting when you consider the Saudi funded hardliners have been planning to build a shiny new mega-mosque right on his doorstep. Complete with an Islamic school which would be monumental in scale, and you can be sure any such school would be extremely opposed to implementing the ERBE program.

Pivotal moments make for interesting times.
An unholy alliance between hardline RC clergy and hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters would be something to behold. It seems this guy and his congregation are being squeezed by both.

and everytime he mentions terrorism he gets his name and face in the paper

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Based in the Clonskeagh mosque on the southside, and now hoping to eclipse him by expanding a very small rival operation in Blanchardstown into this new mega mosque, right on his doorstep. And if you refer to P.3 of the document in my previous link, it says "the school is also monumental in scale"

I think you misread, I said 'who' not 'where'.... there's far too many people attending Clonskeagh mosque for us to be asking you to provide evidence that they're Saudi funded hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters, don't you think? And that's before we discover in what way they're squeezing the poor old Imam.... Still, it's good to know the proposed monumental school would be part of a proposed monumental whole, eh? Hopefully the final design, if approved, will follow the Architects recommendations and be a distinctive complex of buildings incorporating the ideals of Islamic architecture.

And how is the Shuhuda Foundation a rival operation by the way?

recedite wrote: »

I'm sure there are many, but Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan was mentioned in the Indo article which was linked to a few posts back. In November 2015 he spoke in a seminar at Lismullin, the Opus Dei house in Co. Meath.

I'm sure you are, but I was asking who. Obviously not Bishop Cullinan who is quoted as saying ""In its current form, it would be impossible to implement in Catholic schools under my patronage,". That doesn't sound like he's squeezing anything at all to do with Imam Al-Qadri, does it? Even speaking at a seminar for Catholics about Marriage, Evangelization and Mercy doesn't quite sound like anything all to do with the Imam, never mind squeezing him, does it?

recedite wrote: »

I assume you know who Opus Dei are? They don't like Muslims in their schools, or at least they give them a very low priority.

I do. Have you anything to present to show they're squeezing Imam Al-Qadri? Because 'they don't like Muslims in their schools' just sounds like mudslinging for the sake of it... particularly since Opus Dei don't have any schools in Ireland, do they?

recedite wrote: »

And as Al Quadri says, the Muslim kids don't like being segregated from their peer group during religion classes in RC controlled schools, hence they are being turned towards fundamentalist Islamic institutions where they are made to feel welcome.

Ah now, that's a big fat fib, isn't it? The Imam didn't say any such thing at all, that's your own venomous little twist on what he said. The article actually says "Dr Al-Qadri was critical of the current educational provision, where pupils in Muslim schools are not regularly taught about other faiths, and Muslim children in State schools are separated from others for religious education, because he said these practices led to their "isolation from a young age"."

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I think you misread, I said 'who' not 'where'.... there's far too many people attending Clonskeagh mosque for us to be asking you to provide evidence that they're Saudi funded hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters, don't you think?

Why not start at the top, with Hussein Halawa.
Whose own son Ibrahim was a recent graduate of the Islamic school in Clonskeagh, before he got arrested in Eqypt after addressing the crowd at a Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo. And having taken an active part in a riot/failed MB rebellion he is currently costing the Irish taxpayer a fortune in consular services while languishing in prison over there.

Absolam wrote: »

And how is the Shuhuda Foundation a rival operation by the way?

By being run by hardliners right on Al Quadri's doorstep.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Ah now, that's a big fat fib, isn't it? The Imam didn't say any such thing at all, that's your own venomous little twist on what he said. The article actually says
"Dr Al-Qadri was critical of the current educational provision, where pupils in Muslim schools are not regularly taught about other faiths, and Muslim children in State schools are separated from others for religious education, because he said these practices led to their "isolation from a young age"."

If you're going to accuse me of lying, at least have the decency to point out what you think is the difference in meaning between the above quote and the way I paraphrased it;
"And as Al Quadri says, the Muslim kids don't like being segregated from their peer group during religion classes in RC controlled schools, hence they are being turned towards fundamentalist Islamic institutions where they are made to feel welcome".
By "state school" he obviously was not thinking of the ET schools, because they don't separate out the Muslim kids.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Why not start at the top, with Hussein Halawa.

When a link starts with "Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-West. Pro-Israel." you'll understand if people question it's impartiality, surely? Still.. I note Imam Halawa has been quoted as saying "'If there is any terrorist trend among Muslims in Ireland, the Muslim community will take every step to stop it", which doesn't sound very pro Muslim Brotherhood, never mind hardline. I also note the funding for the ICCI of which he is Imam, and the school it houses, comes from the UAE rather than Saudi...

recedite wrote: »

Whose own son Ibrahim was a recent graduate of the Islamic school in Clonskeagh, before he got arrested in Eqypt after addressing the crowd at a Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo. And having taken an active part in a riot/failed MB rebellion he is currently costing the Irish taxpayer a fortune in consular services while languishing in prison over there.

So... that's not Hussein Halawa, that's Ibrahim Halawa?
It doesn't seem either the Irish Government or Amnesty agree with your assesment of his participation in the events in Cairo, and the Irish Times has it that " “The boy is basically not political at all,” says one Irish official. “He’s an Irish schoolboy. He likes sport, music. He writes rap music. He speaks with an ordinary Irish accent. Lovely fella.”". Still, since he's still in Cairo, you're hardly trying to tell us he is one of the Saudi funded hardline Muslim Brotherhood supporters trying to squeeze Imam Al-Qadri are you? So.... any at all?

recedite wrote: »

By being run by hardliners right on Al Quadri's doorstep.

Well, leaving aside your unfounded notions of hardliners for the moment, how does being located nearby make it a rival operation? There are also about twenty churches in the area, are they rival operations too?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If you're going to accuse me of lying, at least have the decency to point out what you think is the difference in meaning between the above quote and the way I paraphrased it;
"And as Al Quadri says, the Muslim kids don't like being segregated from their peer group during religion classes in RC controlled schools, hence they are being turned towards fundamentalist Islamic institutions where they are made to feel welcome".
By "state school" he obviously was not thinking of the ET schools, because they don't separate out the Muslim kids.

I pointed out that when you claimed " as Al Quadri says" he had said no such thing. You surely understand the difference between saying he said something he said, and saying something he didn't say?

Your 'paraphrasing' inserted the notion of segregation, which was not put forward by the Imam, and how Muslim children felt about it, which he didn't mention, and what it turned them towards, which he made no assertion about. All in all, what you said was not what the Imam said, and it was untrue to say that he had said it. You said it, notwithstanding your belief in your uncanny ability to know what he was obviously thinking.

recedite

As I suspected, nothing of any substance. Just the usual nitpicking.
As if there was any difference between segregating a child due to his religion and separating a child due to his religion.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

As I suspected, nothing of any substance. Just the usual nitpicking.

If you mean there was no substantial link between what he said and what you claimed he said, sure.

recedite wrote: »

As if there was any difference between segregating a child due to his religion and separating a child due to his religion.

And I think if you actually felt there was no difference between "Muslim children in State schools are separated from others for religious education" and "being segregated from their peer group during religion classes" you would have remained true to the Imams words, rather than attempting to put your own in his mouth instead....

expectationlost

still no report!

expectationlost

report to be published mid jan 2017


minister asked question on the NCCA also says

The manner in which any school ensures that the right to opt out of religion classes is upheld is a matter for the school concerned

. https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2016-12-13a.429&s=speaker%3A46#g437.r
not good enough doesn't allow freedom from religion


lots of groups in Oireachtas today to talk about religion re the admission bill but gov not interested.

recedite

Its a classic abdication of responsibility. If the Minister for education won't take responsibility for ensuring that school patrons uphold the constitutional rights of pupils, who will?
As he knows, the legal costs will prohibit people from trying to seek remedies individually through the courts.

Peregrinus

Meh. It makes no sense to appoint a board of management to each school, and then say "but the Minister will make the management decisions".

It's neither realistic nor practical for the Minister to micro-manage decisions about how this school will cater for this number of children who are not participating in this class. That's a classic example of a decision which not only can but must be taken at the school management level. If in a particular case they are not doing it well you may need to look again at school managements systems, or school resourcing, but "the Minister must do it!" is a non-solution. This doesn't change depending on whether the opt-out is grounded in an exercise of a constitutional right or in something else.

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

not good enough doesn't allow freedom from religion

Haven't the Courts already ruled that there is no obligation to provide freedom from religion?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its a classic abdication of responsibility. If the Minister for education won't take responsibility for ensuring that school patrons uphold the constitutional rights of pupils, who will?
As he knows, the legal costs will prohibit people from trying to seek remedies individually through the courts.

Surely he was saying he wasn't responsible for how the schools patrons ensure they don't infringe on the Constitutional rights of pupils parents?

recedite

Yes, "How".
As in "fully" or "not at all" or anything in between. Lets just leave it up to the school patron. After all, they know best.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes, "How".
As in "fully" or "not at all" or anything in between. Lets just leave it up to the school patron. After all, they know best.

So.... those providing the service should be responsible for how they provide it? Careful recedite, that actually sounds sensible

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

So.... those providing the service should be responsible for how they provide it?

That's perfectly reasonable in the private sector, for example coffee shops (but even then subject to discrimination laws).
But not in terms of the provision of state services where staff are on the state payroll.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That's perfectly reasonable in the private sector, for example coffee shops (but even then subject to discrimination laws). But not in terms of the provision of state services where staff are on the state payroll.

In terms of the provision of services which the State is only obliged to provide for though... definitely reasonable (even then, still also subject to discrimination laws). Why attempt to micro manage something you're not even responsible for.

recedite

Why pay the salaries for promoting something you're not even responsible for?

Absolam

Because you're obliged to provide for it?

recedite

The state is obliged to provide free state education at primary level.
In terms of assisting religious schools, it is only expected to give supplementary assistance, ie some grant aid. And even then the aid should be conditional; ie its only allowed if they don't indoctrinate.

Article 42.4 wrote:

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.

The system has strayed a long way from the above.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The state is obliged to provide free state education at primary level. In terms of assisting religious schools, it is only expected to give supplementary assistance, ie some grant aid. And even then the aid should be conditional; ie its only allowed if they don't indoctrinate. The system has strayed a long way from the above.

Doesn't the article you're quoting actually say "The State shall provide for free primary education"? And notwithstanding your personal notions of how it should supplement particular educational initiatives, there's no indication in the article that the state has any obligation to make that aid conditional on anything at all, never mind your personal preferences. So the system hasn't really strayed from what you want, it was never what you want. Though I suppose what you want could be said to stray a long way from the States obligations under the article.

recedite

The presence of the word "for" in the text does not change the meaning to the opposite of its original meaning.
Your interpretation is very jesuitical. As in No. 2 here.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The presence of the word "for" in the text does not change the meaning to the opposite of its original meaning.
Your interpretation is very jesuitical. As in No. 2 here.

What original meaning? Article 42.4 has never meant anything other than what it has always said... the State is obliged to provide for education. It's why the State doesn't provide education, but does provide for education. That's not an interpretation... it's just what it says. It's why the State does what it does; it hasn't 'strayed', it's doing what it's obliged to do, what the Article has always obliged it to do.