40% would prefer non-Christian school - Equate Ireland

recedite

c montgomery wrote: »

Your trying to cloud the argument here.
Nothing is stopping these kids from going to school in Ireland, it's just their parents don't like the type of school available..

What?? Nothing was stopping those black kids from going to school in Louisiana, it's just their parents didn't like the type of school available to them..
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/hindu-family-fails-to-get-place-for-child-in-local-school-1.2388898

c montgomery

recedite wrote: »

What?? Nothing was stopping those black kids from going to school in Louisiana, it's just their parents didn't like the type of school available to them..
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/hindu-family-fails-to-get-place-for-child-in-local-school-1.2388898

I was clearly talking about irish schools!

c montgomery

looksee wrote: »

So if and when secular and inclusive education is introduced objectors can be told:
'Nothing is stopping these kids from going to school in Ireland, it's just their parents don't like the type of school available' and that will make everything ok?

They are being introduced, slowly.
I disagree with forcing Catholic schools to change their policies on admission, they own the schools.

Cabaal

c montgomery wrote: »

Your trying to cloud the argument here.
Nothing is stopping these kids from going to school in Ireland, it's just their parents don't like the type of school available.

I find your post quite disgusting.

Don't like the schools available? What are you on about?

1. In many cases the parent can't get their kid into the school because the school gives priority to catholic children first, this is discrimination.
2. Even if the parent gets their child into the school the school can REFUSE to allow the parent to opt their child out of catholic religion class
3. Even if the parent can opt the child out of taking part in the catholic religion class, the school can refuse to allow the child to leave the class.

Come back to us when you understand the issue more, instead of thinking its simply down to what type of school a parent wants
:rolleyes:

You can find my post disgusting all you want, but that doesn't change that your post is clueless about the issue non Catholics experience.

magicbastarder

c montgomery wrote: »

Nothing is stopping these kids from going to school in Ireland, it's just their parents don't like the type of school available.

from what part of the process of a parent applying to send their child to a school, and the school refusing entry because of the religion question, do you get 'nothing is stopping these kids from going to school' - when it's *the school* which is stopping the kids?

Cabaal

c montgomery wrote: »

They are being introduced, slowly.
I disagree with forcing Catholic schools to change their policies on admission, they own the schools.

I'm sure allowing black children into schools was also being introduced slowly, but still many locals wanted the schools to only remain for whites. Sometimes progression needs to be helped along when it comes to discrimination in country's.

If the church want to own the schools and do what they want as they see fit, thats fine. They can do this, when they fund them entirely out of their own money.

As long as they receive tax payer funded money from the government then everyone gets a say in how the admissions policy in the schools should be run.

We have every right to speak out about how are tax is spend when it comes to discriminating against 5 year olds.

c montgomery

Cabaal wrote: »

Don't like the schools available? What are you on about?

1. In many cases the parent can't get their kid into the school because the school gives priority to catholic children first, this is discrimination.
2. Even if the parent gets their child into the school the school can REFUSE to allow the parent to opt their child out of catholic religion class
3. Even if the parent can opt the child out of taking part in the catholic religion class, the school can refuse to allow the child to leave the class.

Come back to us when you understand the issue more, instead of thinking its simply down to what type of school a parent wants
:rolleyes:

You can find my post disgusting all you want, but that doesn't change that your post is clueless about the issue non Catholics experience.

Priority to Catholic children, good! That's exactly what they should do in Catholic schools. Its common sense.

It non Catholic children have to sit through religious studies big deal, might give then more balance.

Maybe lobby your td for new schools rather than trying to change the ethos of the catholic schools that have been there for decades. The government needs the catholic schools, not the other way around.

Mary63

frostyjacks is right,Im not sure if the word pawn is right but at the end of the day it is the children who are losing out,its the child who has to commute to a school further away from his or her house and its much harder for children to make friends locally if they go to school outside the area.Its much harder for parents to make friends too as friendships are forged through the local school.

I don't think anyone here has the right to question my integrity or any of the other parents who take a pragmatic long term view,most of us don't practice religion regularly,this doesn't mean we don't believe there is a God or a Greater power.We don't have a huge issue with the Catholic Church,to us one Church is the same as the next and we choose the bits and pieces we like in all religions.We recognise that the Catholic School is perfectly adequate for our needs and life is complicated enough without travelling twenty five miles each way to another school to avoid looking at pictures of the sacred heart.We don't mind looking at pictures of the communicants and confirmation boys and girls displayed throughout the school,our children are in these pictures and the Athiest parents can ask can pictures of their children be put up on the walls too.

Our main concern in choosing the school is the size of the class and the reputation of the principal,hugely important also is where the school feeds too.If it doesn't feed to a good secondary school we will not choose it,we will travel further to access a good secondary school because to us thats important.Again we don't care what ethos the secondary school has either,we look at the school league tables and we drive by the local secondary school to see do we like the look of the pupils.

People will stop at nothing to get their child into a good school,they will lie and use a relatives address to pretend they are in the parish,some will even rent a house in the parish so they can have utility bills to present when asked,they will do whatever it takes for their child because education is hugely important and a bad school will do long term damage to a child and prevent them reaching their potential.It doesn't matter how supportive the home environment,if your child is in a school where a large percentage of the other students don't want to be there his education will be affected.The teacher will be exhausted trying to deal with discipline problems and lack of parental support and this impacts on the whole school.

Your principals and integrity might out weigh the negative effects on your child but the rest of us are making an informed decision for our children and no badgering by a minority or efforts to paint us in a negative light is going to make us rethink for a second,everything changes when our childs education and future is at stake.

c montgomery

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm sure allowing black children into schools was also being introduced slowly, but still many locals wanted the schools to only remain for whites. Sometimes progression needs to be helped along when it comes to discrimination in country's.

If the church want to own the schools and do what they want as they see fit, thats fine. They can do this, when they fund them entirely out of their own money.

As long as they receive tax payer funded money from the government then everyone gets a say in how the admissions policy in the schools should be run.

As such you can disagree all you want but we have every right to speak out about how are tax is spend when it comes to discriminating against 5 year olds.

I disagree with your point on taxpayers deciding on admission policy. In government owned and run schools then yes this should be the case however in church owned schools no, they should be free to dictate policy.

Well only argue forever on this so ill leave this thread.

I'm not religious by the way with young children and have to travel quite a distance to bring then to school (galescoil) but I respect the churches position on admission and would not try to chance this based on my circumstance.

PopePalpatine

c montgomery wrote: »

I disagree with your point on taxpayers deciding on admission policy. In government owned and run schools then yes this should be the case however in church owned schools no, they should be free to dictate policy.

Well only argue forever on this so ill leave this thread.

I'm not religious by the way with young children and have to travel quite a distance to bring then to school (galescoil) but I respect the churches position on admission and would not try to chance this based on my circumstance.

The State is paying the salaries of the staff and the costs of running the schools.

Besides, the RCC still has hundreds of millions to pay in redress for abuse. If the State can make you sell your land so that they can build roads and railways, there's nothing stopping them from doing the same to Catholic schools except cowardly gombeenism.

Cabaal

c montgomery wrote: »

Priority to Catholic children, good! That's exactly what they should do in Catholic schools. Its common sense.

They are state paid for schools with catholic ethos,
So no it makes zero sense.

It non Catholic children have to sit through religious studies big deal, might give then more balance.

Balance eh?
I guess we should waste Catholic kids time by making sure they use 10% of their primary level school time on Islamic studies too. You know...for balance
:rolleyes:

Maybe lobby your td for new schools rather than trying to change the ethos of the catholic schools that have been there for decades. The government needs the catholic schools, not the other way around.

My local schools which I'll be sending my kids to were paid for by the government, as such I'll lobby the government in relation to getting access to these schools that I helped pay for.

Just like if a local hospital was build with tax payer money and it discriminated against people on religious grounds (allowing Catholics to be treated before non-Catholics) I'd also lobby the government to change this.

I have every right to,

Cabaal

Mary63, here's to hoping a fantastic strict Islamic school opens up right next door to you. Sure the girls will have to be separated from the boys and they'll have to wear hijabs and will be seen as less then equal to the boys. But hey, thats not big deal if its a good school and its local right?

Mary63

If I move to an Islamic country cabal I have to abide by their customs,that means I myself cover up and I enrol my children in whatever school is available,that is the reality whether I like it or not.

I think Islam should be taught in our schools,it looks like all of Europe will have to accommodate huge numbers of Muslim people and in order for us to live side by side we have to learn about each others beliefs.There is a huge amount of goodness in Islamic teaching and its no harm for our children to be learn about it.Its also fair that muslim children in our Catholic schools should have their Imans brought into the school to talk about their religion just the same as the catholic priest pops in regularly to drink tea with the principal.

robindch

c montgomery wrote: »

Nothing is stopping these kids from going to school in Ireland [...]

Nothing except the church.

robindch

Mary63 wrote: »

[...] principals and integrity [...]

That's certainly what it seems to boil down to, eh?

Delirium

c montgomery wrote: »

Priority to Catholic children, good! That's exactly what they should do in Catholic schools. Its common sense.

Discriminating against non-Catholics with regard to public schools is anything but common sense. You might have a point if they were in addition to a secular school in all villages/towns, but they're often the only school.

It non Catholic children have to sit through religious studies big deal, might give then more balance.

Then it follows that a secular school that teaches about a variety of religious perspectives would be better for all instead of a Roman Catholic only lesson plan.

Maybe lobby your td for new schools rather than trying to change the ethos of the catholic schools that have been there for decades. The government needs the catholic schools, not the other way around.

Where I grew up doesn't have the population to justify a second school. Why should non-Catholics be punished for not living in a large urban centre?

Delirium

Mary63 wrote: »

If I move to an Islamic country cabal I have to abide by their customs,that means I myself cover up and I enrol my children in whatever school is available,that is the reality whether I like it or not.

I think Islam should be taught in our schools,it looks like all of Europe will have to accommodate huge numbers of Muslim people and in order for us to live side by side we have to learn about each others beliefs.There is a huge amount of goodness in Islamic teaching and its no harm for our children to be learn about it.Its also fair that muslim children in our Catholic schools should have their Imans brought into the school to talk about their religion just the same as the catholic priest pops in regularly to drink tea with the principal.

So you want Catholic schools to behave in a more pluralist and inclusive way to non-Catholics but still be allowed to discriminate against them getting school places?

It sounds like some sort Catholic/secular fence-sitting tbh.

looksee

In the A&A forum we are accustomed to a minimum level of logic, intelligence and philosophical debate (except when humour is involved ... no, actually, even then).

This thread is supposed to be about whether 40% of parents would prefer non-Christian schools. So far it has been about the degree of cynicism that 'most' parents do/should apply to education and retention of the status quo because it is 'nice'.

The thread has really not moved forward on the discussion as it has been overtaken by filibustering which is devoid of logic, intelligence or any philosophy, or it is being trolled.

I don't think there is a great deal of difference between the two.

Shrap

Delirium wrote: »

Discriminating against non-Catholics with regard to public schools is anything but common sense. You might have a point if they were in addition to a secular school in all villages/towns, but they're often the only school.

Then it follows that a secular school that teaches about a variety of religious perspectives would be better for all instead of a Roman Catholic only lesson plan.

Where I grew up doesn't have the population to justify a second school. Why should non-Catholics be punished for not living in a large urban centre?

Exactly. There is no point in either building or "divesting" one school in any given rural area as (as Mary rightly points out), this would be a further cause of community segregation as can be seen from this document just posted by expectationslost in the School Patronage thread: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoireachtas/libraryresearch/spotlights/SpotlightSchoolchoice290915_101712.pdf

The only way forward for an equitable school system overall is for admissions policies in all State funded schools to be not allowed to discriminate on a religious basis, and for the in-school segregation in religious faith formation practice to be shelved. Although the Department of Education appear to be making some ground on this level, they have yet again rolled over to the "special place" demanded by the Catholic Church in this regard, as can be seen from this report (also just posted by expectationslost in the School Patronage thread). http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2012/0328/315388-educationfoi/

That 84% of all National Schools are Catholic, which does not reflect the make up of any Irish community any longer, surely gives cause for reflection on these promises made to the Catholic Church regarding the delivery of faith formation during school hours?

Shrap

Cabaal wrote: »

Mary63, here's to hoping a fantastic strict Islamic school opens up right next door to you. Sure the girls will have to be separated from the boys and they'll have to wear hijabs and will be seen as less then equal to the boys. But hey, thats not big deal if its a good school and its local right?

Probably not a big deal to Mary, seeing as she's considering sending her daughter to an Opus Dei run school :pac:

Cabaal

Shrap wrote: »

Probably not a big deal to Mary, seeing as she's considering sending her daughter to an Opus Dei run school :pac:

I hear their mortification classes are second to none!

c montgomery

Cabaal wrote: »

They are state paid for schools with catholic ethos,
So no it makes zero sense.



Balance eh?
I guess we should waste Catholic kids time by making sure they use 10% of their primary level school time on Islamic studies too. You know...for balance
:rolleyes:



My local schools which I'll be sending my kids to were paid for by the government, as such I'll lobby the government in relation to getting access to these schools that I helped pay for.

Just like if a local hospital was build with tax payer money and it discriminated against people on religious grounds (allowing Catholics to be treated before non-Catholics) I'd also lobby the government to change this.

I have every right to,

They are catholic owned schools where the state pays for the teachers, when the state owns the schools they can make the rules.

And yes some time should be dedicated in schools to learn about all religions. It will make it more obvious to the kids that's there all a load of rubbish.

Shrap

c montgomery wrote: »

They are catholic owned schools where the state pays for the teachers, when the state owns the schools they can make the rules.

And yes some time should be dedicated in schools to learn about all religions. It will make it more obvious to the kids that's there all a load of rubbish.

So you're quite, quite comfortable with the Catholic church owning 84% - 90% of our National Schools, where we all (through the state) pay for the teachers? Don't see anything wrong with that picture at all, no? You do realise that Ireland is a complete anomaly in the Western world in this sense, don't you?

Origin of the primary school system
The national (primary) school system
was established in Ireland in 1831 by
the British government. The intention
was that the State would fund any
school which provided an education
for students of all denominations
together. Religious instruction was to
be provided to students separately.20
However, the churches opposed this
mixed denominational system and by
the end of the 19th Century most
primary schools were under the
ownership and management of the
three main churches: Presbyterians,
Roman Catholics and Anglicans.
21
When Ireland achieved independence
in 1921 religious instruction became a
fundamental part of the school
curriculum and schools remained
under denominational patronage.
22
Patronage in Irish schools today
Ireland’s education system is unique
among developed countries, in that
96% of primary schools are under
denominational patronage.23 Table 1
shows the patronage system operating
at primary level in Ireland.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoireachtas/libraryresearch/spotlights/SpotlightSchoolchoice290915_101712.pdf

c montgomery

Shrap wrote: »

So you're quite, quite comfortable with the Catholic church owning 84% of our National Schools, where we all (through the state) pay for the teachers? Don't see anything wrong with that picture at all, no? You do realise that Ireland is a complete anomaly in the Western world in this sense, don't you?

I think parents should be thanking the catholic church for accomidating their kids. Without the church the state would not have the schools for all these children.

And yes it doesn't bother me at all that they own 84% of them. It bothers me that they are being portrayed as the bad guys when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Shrap

c montgomery wrote: »

Without the church the state would not have the schools for all these children.

Correction to the above: Without the shelving of responsibility by the Irish State (upon achieving independence) towards education in giving it over to the Catholic Church, we would still have schools but they would not be owned by the church.



And we should "thank" the Catholic Church why exactly? I mean, we pay for the teachers....

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

I think parents should be thanking the catholic church for accomidating their kids. Without the church the state would not have the schools for all these children.

And yes it doesn't bother me at all that they own 84% of them. It bothers me that they are being portrayed as the bad guys when it couldn't be further from the truth.

And we as a state are very grateful to them but how long do we have to kowtow to them because of it? That day has gone. Changing the admission system is not dismissing the valuable work they did in education. My children have as much right to an education as Catholic children. I won't grovel to any organisation for 'accommodating' my child. She was a wonderful student. They were lucky to have HER

c montgomery

Shrap wrote: »

Correction to the above: Without the shelving of responsibility by the Irish State (upon achieving independence) towards education in giving it over to the Catholic Church, we would still have schools but they would not be owned by the church.



And we should "thank" the Catholic Church why exactly? I mean, we pay for the teachers....

What good are teachers without schools? You can thank the church for providing the schools, at least you should be thankful.

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

And we as a state are very grateful to them but how long do we have to kowtow to them because of it? That day has gone. Changing the admission system is not dismissing the valuable work they did in education.

The vast majority are happy with the admission policy and how things are run currently. Most people don't care once the school delivers good results.

Shrap

c montgomery wrote: »

What good are teachers without schools? You can thank the church for providing the schools, at least you should be thankful.

Are we talking about the same Catholic Church here? What good are schools that discriminate against 4-5 yr olds on religious grounds, in order to cling for dear life to their "special place" in our state? Speaking of "providing" schools, who gave them the land, the money for the building and the "special place" in the first instance? And can't we change it yet? If not, why not?

Cabaal

c montgomery wrote: »

What good are teachers without schools? You can thank the church for providing the schools, at least you should be thankful.

What good is a school building without the teachers which the tax payer pays for.

The teachers make the school, not the building. You could use a town hall as a school and it would work fine...provided you had good teachers.

Delirium

c montgomery wrote: »

What good are teachers without schools? You can thank the church for providing the schools, at least you should be thankful.

And what good are schools without teachers/funding?

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

The vast majority are happy with the admission policy and how things are run currently. Most people don't care once the school delivers good results.

Because the vast majority aren't affected. It's easy to be blase about it when you aren't going to be struggling to find a school place.

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

Because the vast majority aren't affected. It's easy to be blase about it when you aren't going to be struggling to find a school place.

I did struggle but I'd rather struggle than try and enforce my view and outlook on the catholic schools in my area

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

I did struggle but I'd rather struggle than try and enforce my view and outlook on the catholic schools in my area

Who is doing that? Most people just want a local school place for their child so they can walk to school, make friends with local kids and feel part of the community. They aren't trying to force the school to be secular. With a bit of compromise the school can continue to teach Catholicism to those who want it while accommodating the children of other faiths and none. It works very well in the ET system, it can work equally well in other schools too.

JPCN1

Cabaal wrote: »

What good is a school building without the teachers which the tax payer pays for.

The teachers make the school, not the building. You could use a town hall as a school and it would work fine...provided you had good teachers.

Off you go so.

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

Who is doing that? Most people just want a local school place for their child so they can walk to school, make friends with local kids and feel part of the community. They aren't trying to force the school to be secular. With a bit of compromise the school can continue to teach Catholicism to those who want it while accommodating the children of other faiths and none. It works very well in the ET system, it can work equally well in other schools too.

I agree 100%, but I also think that a catholic school should favour catholic students first.

looksee

c montgomery wrote: »

I did struggle but I'd rather struggle than try and enforce my view and outlook on the catholic schools in my area

I would rather submit to my husband and let him make my decisions for me than look for a vote.

I would rather let my white superiors kindly give me a job than look for the opportunity for my black brothers to create their own.

I would rather obey the church that I do not believe in than think for myself.

Cabaal

JPCN1 wrote: »

Off you go so.

Nothing actually constructive to add?
No?.....Thought not
:rolleyes:

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

I agree 100%, but I also think that a catholic school should favour catholic students first.

So you believe in segregation of children based on faith? Why? Local schools should be for local kids. It makes no sense that my kid is driven to school when the local primary is a two minute walk away. School places should be granted on the basis of proximity, religion, ethnicity etc should be completely irrelevant. An equal playing field and a fair chance is all people want. It's not too much to ask.

Cabaal

c montgomery wrote: »

I agree 100%, but I also think that a catholic school should favour catholic students first.

Not while they are funded by the tax payer,
Would you think its ok for a catholic school to treat Catholics ahead of non-catholics?

We're talking about kids here, you are saying you think its perfectly fine for a 5 year old to be discriminated against.

That in some parts of the country you'd rather a child has to travel in excess of 90min+ car journey each way to a non-catholic school (if it even has space!) then to allow the child to attend their local tax payer funded school.

Thats deeply worrying that you would discriminate against a child like that,

c montgomery

looksee wrote: »

I would rather submit to my husband and let him make my decisions for me than look for a vote.

I would rather let my white superiors kindly give me a job than look for the opportunity for my black brothers to create their own.

I would rather obey the church that I do not believe in than think for myself.

Yawn

We're all the mods on this forum cut from the same cloth. Very little balance or diverse opinions among them.

I'll leave ye to it, best of luck but I don't see much changing in the short term, hopefully

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

Yawn

We're all the mods on this forum cut from the same cloth. Very little balance or diverse opinions among them.

I'll leave ye to it, best of luck but I don't see much changing in the short term, hopefully

How very Christian of you

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

So you believe in segregation of children based on faith? Why? Local schools should be for local kids. It makes no sense that my kid is driven to school when the local primary is a two minute walk away. School places should be granted on the basis of proximity, religion, ethnicity etc should be completely irrelevant. An equal playing field and a fair chance is all people want. It's not too much to ask.

Are you intentionally misinterpreting me.
I said favour Catholics so they are admitted first in Catholic schools. I would be 100% against segregation.

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

How very Christian of you

Thanks but I'm an atheist

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

Thanks but I'm an atheist

Well that's a surprise. Are you a parent?

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

Well that's a surprise. Are you a parent?

Yes 2 kids

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

Are you intentionally misinterpreting me.
I said favour Catholics so they are admitted first in Catholic schools. I would be 100% against segregation.

As I'm sure you are well aware there are many areas that would be so over subscribed that the school would be completely made up of Catholic children. It's still segregation.

looksee

c montgomery wrote: »

I agree 100%, but I also think that a catholic school should favour catholic students first.

Schools that were opened by the Catholic Church (or any other religious group), maintained and funded by them, fine. I have no issue with schools of that sort having a subvention by government to pay teachers, all children are entitled to have the government pay towards their education.

The vast majority of schools were not built by, paid for, maintained or staffed by the Catholic Church. They were (foolishly) permitted to take them over as patrons, and this is being interpreted as they are owners.

If you can list National Schools that were built by the church and maintained by the church I would be interested to hear about them.

There is a new school near me that was entirely built by the state, on a green field site, is staffed and equipped by the state. It replaces two church schools - they have retained the land and buildings that they had, but the new school has been handed over to a RC patron as well. So now, if you argue on the same basis that the National Schools have been treated, the RC Church 'owns' a school in which they have no input, other than dictating how it shall be run.

eviltwin

c montgomery wrote: »

Yes 2 kids

Are they school age? How did you/will you manage the school situation?

c montgomery

eviltwin wrote: »

As I'm sure you are well aware there are many areas that would be so over subscribed that the school would be completely made up of Catholic children. It's still segregation.

In that case an additional school should be built by the government for all religions in the area