Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State has to provide for education, so it's going to have to fund the education that parents want for their children, and if parents decide that they want their children educated in a school with a religious ethos, then the State must fulfil it's obligation to provide for the education of those children.

The state has no such obligation to provide for a religious education. Where on earth did you get that wrongheaded idea from?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I suspect your logic is somewhat incomplete there. How about

(c) That nobodies child should be educated contrary to their beliefs, or more simply, that within reason* religious instruction and faith formation be made an extra curricular activity across the school system.

Those are reasonable propositions, but neither of them reflect Hermy's view that "faith formation has no place in the education system".

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

The state has no such obligation to provide for a religious education. Where on earth did you get that wrongheaded idea from?

Article 42 of the Irish Constitution?


1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3.1°:The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

3.2°:The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4: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.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Article 42 of the Irish Constitution?


1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3.1°:The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

3.2°:The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4: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.

where's the bit about the state being obliged to provide a religious education?

Safehands

lawred2 wrote: »

It's all sectarian stone aged nonsense in my eyes

yes, but Islamic or Church of Ireland beliefs are equally stone age beliefs, but they are not included. Why?

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

where's the bit about the state being obliged to provide a religious education?

I didn't say anything about the State being obliged to provide religious education in the first place? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you misunderstood my post in the first place when I said that the State was obliged to provide for education (it doesn't specifically state "provide religious education", so I wasn't sure where you got that from, only by misreading my post).


But for further context, Article 44 is worth a read:


2.2°: The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2.3°: The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

2.4°: Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

2.5°: Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.

2.6°: The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

Peregrinus

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Yet again the 'let em build their own school' fallacy.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Non-Catholics, non-Christians and non-believers have just as much right to have schools for their children provided/supported as Catholics/believers do, and at the moment they don't.

My point is a purely tactical one. Pressure to provide more non-Catholic, etc, schools comes partly from the fact that non-Catholics face greater barriers than Catholics do in getting into Catholic schools, which at present are the overwhelming majority of schools. If that changes, and more non-Catholics are admitted to Catholic schools, the number of non-Catholics seeking places in non-Catholic schools will fall, which will reduce the pressure.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Those are reasonable propositions, but neither of them reflect Hermy's view that "faith formation has no place in the education system".

I ain't Hermy

Personally, I tend to agree with the Educate Together stance that faith formation be allowed for as an extra curricular activity where there is demand for it by parents, where those parents may also be required to provide the necessary teacher / priest / imam or whatever. Just because I'm an atheist, as are my kids, doesn't imply I have any problem with other families being afforded the opportunity to raise their children in their faith. Where I have a problem is people trying to push their religion onto my kids.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Personally, I tend to agree with the Educate Together stance that faith formation be allowed for as an extra curricular activity where there is demand for it by parents, where those parents may also be required to provide the necessary teacher / priest / imam or whatever. Just because I'm an atheist, as are my kids, doesn't imply I have any problem with other families being afforded the opportunity to raise their children in their faith.

Right, but why have the parents indoctrinate their kids in their own religions on the school premises at all. Surely the home and the local church/mosque/temple/shrine is the place for that?

After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned, any more than after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Right, but why have the parents indoctrinate their kids in their own religions on the school premises at all. Surely the home and the local church/mosque/temple/shrine is the place for that?

After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned any more that after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them.

Because the school was set up to provide religious education. This isn't chicken and egg stuff - religion definitely came first, education came second.

With regard to the Ministers comments on what is called "the baptism barrier", I don't see anything that's actually changed. It's just saying the same thing differently. Apart from that, the State could not withdraw State aid from schools with a religious ethos in order to appease a minority.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Teachers already have freedom of conscience with regard to religion in Ireland? Nobody is forced to train to become a teacher, and nobody is forced to seek employment in a school with a religious ethos.

So you seriously think that :

- Teachers are forced to teach a religion as fact in 96% of primary schools

- Teachers who are not RC will not be employed in >90% of primary schools

- Non-religious teachers are employable in only 4% of primary schools


does NOT conflict with their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

Seroiously?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Right, but why have the parents indoctrinate their kids in their own religions on the school premises at all. Surely the home and the local church/mosque/temple/shrine is the place for that?

After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned, any more than after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them.

Convenience for the parents primarily, which in turn leads to less resistance to a positive change that meets everyone's needs. Just as the school gym should be a freely available facility for extra curricular sports such as Judo, making classrooms freely available for religious instruction on an extra curricular basis is reasonable. If you take a stance that this should not be the case basically you're placing a burden of extra journeys and organisation on parents that do want their children to receive religious instruction. The effect of this is that such parents will fight against such a change, and as such the change will never happen while they remain a majority. A more pragmatic approach, and IMHO a fairer one too, is to seek a solution that is acceptable to the majority of parents.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the school was set up to provide religious education....

At a time when everyone went to church at least once a week, it was illegal to be homosexual, the priests were feared, and we were sending pregnant daughters to the nuns. Ireland has thankfully moved on. We are not the same society that set these schools up.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you seriously think that :

- Teachers are forced to teach a religion as fact in 96% of primary schools

- Teachers who are not RC will not be employed in >90% of primary schools

- Non-religious teachers are employable in only 4% of primary schools


does NOT conflict with their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

Seroiously?

Yes, seriously - human rights aren't based on a persons chosen career choice. People, whether they are teachers or not, are not denied their freedom of conscience. Like any other chosen career choice, there are certain criteria which an employer is entitled to look for. People who train to become teachers are more than well aware of those criteria before they ever start applying for positions in schools (regardless of the ethos of the school).

If I were unfit for or unable to do a job on the basis that it violated or was contrary to my principles or world view, then common sense would suggest I seek alternative employment which would be more in line with my principles or world view. If someone were to apply for a position, knowing the criteria and the responsibilities that position requires, and lied to meet all the criteria, or misled potential employers to give the impression they met the criteria, then who's responsibility is that really?

It sure as hell isn't the employers responsibility.

Hotblack Desiato

Unbelieveable.

They're educators not clerics.

These are state-funded roles, to add insult to injury.

Safehands

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you seriously think that :

- Teachers are forced to teach a religion as fact in 96% of primary schools

- Teachers who are not RC will not be employed in >90% of primary schools

- Non-religious teachers are employable in only 4% of primary schools


does NOT conflict with their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

Seroiously?

My spouse is a teacher. The majority of her colleagues do not believe in the religious curriculum they teach. They have to teach it all the same.
Members of the clergy regularly chair the boards of managements of schools, or if they don't, they appoint the chairperson, even if they have no educational qualifications. Why does that matter? Because these chairpeople have a major say in the appointment of school principals and teachers, if a teacher is honest and declares his or her lack of faith, they have very little chance of being appointed. If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unbelieveable.

They're educators not clerics.

These are state-funded roles, to add insult to injury.

You're acting as though they're entitled to a job just because they decided to become teachers?

They're not.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're acting as though they're entitled to a job just because they decided to become teachers?

They are entitled not be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though, both legally and as a human right. Safehands' post is one I've heard on a number of occasions from other friends who are teachers.

One eyed Jack

Safehands wrote: »

My spouse is a teacher. The majority of her colleagues do not believe in the religious curriculum they teach. They have to teach it all the same.
Members of the clergy regularly chair the boards of managements of schools, or if they don't, they appoint the chairperson, even if they have no educational qualifications. Why does that matter? Because these chairpeople have a major say in the appointment of school principals and teachers, if a teacher is honest and declares his or her lack of faith, they have very little chance of being appointed. If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required

Of course there are other clues required if you're asking people to guess who would be the more suitable candidate for the role.

You're also leaving out the fact that any teacher applying for a position in the school would also have had to meet other criteria first, like registration with the teaching council, Garda vetting, an interview before a three person panel, approval of the nominated candidate by the Board of Management.

In other words - it wouldn't really matter that you on your own might consider them to be a brilliant educator if they don't meet the criteria required for the position as advertised, member of Opus Dei or not.

tabby aspreme

Safehands wrote: »

My spouse is a teacher. The majority of her colleagues do not believe in the religious curriculum they teach. They have to teach it all the same.
Members of the clergy regularly chair the boards of managements of schools, or if they don't, they appoint the chairperson, even if they have no educational qualifications. Why does that matter? Because these chairpeople have a major say in the appointment of school principals and teachers, if a teacher is honest and declares his or her lack of faith, they have very little chance of being appointed. If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required.

May have been the case in the past.
Three people now sit on the interview panel, school Principal , chair of BOM, and another Principal, usually from a nearby school. The panel then has to have authority from the full board to carry out the recruitment process . The chairperson has no more say than any other person on the interview panel

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

recedite - After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned, any more than after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them

Because the school was set up to provide religious education. This isn't chicken and egg stuff - religion definitely came first, education came second.

smacl wrote: »

At a time when everyone went to church at least once a week, it was illegal to be homosexual, the priests were feared, and we were sending pregnant daughters to the nuns. Ireland has thankfully moved on. We are not the same society that set these schools up.

You're both right. But my post was in response to smacl advocating the ET approach of having religious indoctrination after school. The ET schools did not exist in those days, and were not set up specifically to provide religious indoctrination.
So would smacl care to elaborate on why they should be considered the natural place for after-school religious indoctrination classes?

I'm going to anticipate your response here, and say; "Its because (some) parents want it."
Fair enough. But be aware the only reason they want it, is because they themselves attended RC schools in their youth, where they were conditioned into believing that it was the norm. Do you really want to perpetuate that cycle?

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

They are entitled not be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though, both legally and as a human right. Safehands' post is one I've heard on a number of occasions from other friends who are teachers.

They can legally be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though. I've heard Safehands posts a number of times too myself, and all it is - is speculation, begging the question.

I've interviewed plenty of teachers and you can spot the spoofers a mile off. Teachers are appointed with the interests of the school and the children in mind first and foremost. If someone feels they're being discriminated against because they don't want to do the job they're applying for, then that's their responsibility. It's going to be difficult to claim discrimination and be taken seriously after that.

recedite

tabby aspreme wrote: »

May have been the case in the past.
Three people now sit on the interview panel, school Principal , chair of BOM, and another Principal, usually from a nearby school.

OK, so in a parish school, if the chairman of the BOM is the local priest, and the two principals are "the right sort" of people who he has previously appointed to their positions in parish schools, how exactly is this "a non-religious appointment process" ?

Safehands

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're also leaving out the fact that any teacher applying for a position in the school would also have had to meet other criteria first, like registration with the teaching council, Garda vetting, an interview before a three person panel, approval of the nominated candidate by the Board of Management.

Of course they will all have met with these important criteria, all qualified to fill the position. Their religious beliefs will take precedence in many, many cases. If they are brilliant candidates but are luke warm in their religious beliefs and they are up against another candidate who is very religious, they will have little chance, in many instances. That is the reality!

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've interviewed plenty of teachers and you can spot the spoofers a mile off....
If someone feels they're being discriminated against because they don't want to do the job they're applying for, then that's their responsibility.

That's assuming the job involves the religious indoctrination of kids. Which is not something the state should be doing, so how exactly do you justify recruiting someone for the state payroll on this basis?

It goes back to the fundamental flaw in the whole system. Publicly funded schools should not be allowed to use any form of discrimination, and should not be using public funds for religious indoctrination either.

If you want to recruit teachers for a fully privately funded religious school, feel free to recruit them on whatever basis you like, and discriminate as much as you like.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

So would smacl care to elaborate on why they should be considered the natural place for after-school religious indoctrination classes?

Pragmatism. The current status quo includes a large population of religiously inclined families that want their kids to receive religious instruction, yet neither want nor are inclined to put any effort into providing for it. A change which does not intrude on this has the best possibility of actually happening. A change that drastically interferes with this is going to be vehemently opposed, to such an extent I'd consider it an idealistic fantasy. I don't care how other families raise their kids, once it is not affecting mine.

Safehands

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can legally be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though. I've heard Safehands posts a number of times too myself, and all it is - is speculation, begging the question.

No its not!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've interviewed plenty of teachers and you can spot the spoofers a mile off. Teachers are appointed with the interests of the school and the children in mind first and foremost.

Good for you! It's a pity other chairpersons don't take a leaf out of your book.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

OK, so in a parish school, if the chairman of the BOM is the local priest, and the two principals are "the right sort" of people who he has previously appointed to their positions in parish schools, how exactly is this "a non-religious appointment process" ?

Who claimed that it was a non-religious process in the first place? The appointment wouldn't solely be based upon the religious criteria is what people are saying, as opposed to silly suggestions about being members of Opus Dei and having no other merits will see a person hired over someone who is actually the "best educator". Not only is it a dumb comparison, but it ignores the fact that there are other criteria looked for in potential candidates besides their religious affiliation.

If they're the best candidate for the job, they're hired. If they're not the best candidate for the job, then why should they be hired?

One eyed Jack

Safehands wrote: »

No its not!

How is this not speculation and begging the question -

Safehands wrote: »

If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required.

It would depend upon a number of other assumptions being made in order to validate your hypothesis.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who claimed that it was a non-religious process in the first place? The appointment wouldn't solely be based upon the religious criteria is what people are saying, as opposed to silly suggestions about being members of Opus Dei and having no other merits will see a person hired over someone who is actually the "best educator". Not only is it a dumb comparison, but it ignores the fact that there are other criteria looked for in potential candidates besides their religious affiliation.

If they're the best candidate for the job, they're hired. If they're not the best candidate for the job, then why should they be hired?

unfortunately one of the requirements to measure their suitability is their willingness to engage in indoctrination...

It's not a problem for you. That's grand.