Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

recedite

smacl wrote: »

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.

IMO the demand for after-school religion in ET schools comes exclusively from RC parents, many of whom are lapsed anyway. They don't want their child to miss out on the big communion day, but they can't be bothered arranging for the classes to be held after school at the local RC school, because that would involve extra work and an extra trip in the car.
Can you point to any other religious group asking for this after-school facility to be made available at an ET school? (a link, or even an anecdote)

As such, you are only perpetuating the idea that the RCC has the right to insert itself as the default religion for the provision of indoctrination in state schools. And the idea that primary schools are the natural place for religious indoctrination, even when not owned, or even run, by the particular religion involved.

Safehands

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is this not speculation and begging the question -

You want examples, here?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

The assumption YOU must make is that chairmen are prepared to ignore the religious beliefs of candidates in favour of their educational qualifications and abilities.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

They shouldn't but they are, specifically because of their stated religious beliefs. Religious discrimination is allowed for in section 37 of the employment act and occurs on an ongoing basis. Absolutely appalling behaviour IMHO, and glad to see that in some cases such as this, the schools get taken to task over it.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

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.

It's not a problem for most teachers I know either who are able to keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers.

Same as any other job then.

yoganinja

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a problem for most teachers I know either who are able to keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers.

Same as any other job then.

The fact that there has to be specific employment legislation to enforce this onus on employees specifically highlights that this imposition is not "same as any other job"

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a problem for most teachers I know either who are able to keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers.

Same as any other job then.

Not really though is it.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.. keep their personal opinions to themselves and are able to do what is required of them by their employers...

Same as any other job then.

There are not many others on the state payroll who are required to act as agents for a particular religion. Even when it goes against their own conscience.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

They shouldn't but they are, specifically because of their stated religious beliefs. Religious discrimination is allowed for in section 37 of the employment act and occurs on an ongoing basis. Absolutely appalling behaviour IMHO, and glad to see that in some cases such as this, the schools get taken to task over it.

I don't think so. The reason that woman won her case is because the line of questioning in the interview didn't even fall within the scope of that allowed by Section 37. Nobody to my knowledge at least has ever been hired solely based upon their religious beliefs. If they aren't religious, but they're applying for a position in a religious ethos school, then they are responsible for that, not the interview panel or the BOM which may consider another candidate to be better suited to the position.

It's often been the case that a male teacher who happens to be very interested in physical education might be more suitable to a position than a female teacher who might be highly qualified in music and drama for example. It depends upon far more than just religious criteria, and you're going to have a hard time proving discrimination unless it's pretty blatant, as it was in the case above.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and you're going to have a hard time proving discrimination unless it's pretty blatant..

You realise that you are not exactly taking the high moral ground here? :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

So basically OEJ you're saying it's their tough titties for not being born catholics.

That it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one)

and you can't even begin to see how there might be anything at all not right with this?

tabby aspreme

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" ?

As I said earlier that may have been a scenario in the past . In our area there is one Parish Priest with 5 parishes which he administers over , there are 16 schools in the area and he is not involved in the running of any of them, move with the times

lawred2

that's ironic

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So basically OEJ you're saying it's their tough titties for not being born catholics.

That it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one)

and you can't even begin to see how there might be anything at all not right with this?

No, that's not basically anything like I'm saying at all. That's your interpretation, not mine, so I don't feel any particular need to defend your perspective.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

You realise that you are not exactly taking the high moral ground here? :pac:

I don't want the high moral ground at all though. That's the thing. I'm perfectly able to understand that other people have other ideals for their children than I would have for my children, but like smacl suggested above - as long as they don't try to impose their ideals on me or my children, we're all good.

When people try to impose their ideals on other people, they should expect backlash in equal and opposite measure. Newton's laws and all that jazz.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't want the high moral ground at all though. That's the thing. I'm perfectly able to understand that other people have other ideals for their children than I would have for my children, but like smacl suggested above - as long as they don't try to impose their ideals on me or my children, we're all good.

When people try to impose their ideals on other people, they should expect backlash in equal and opposite measure. Newton's laws and all that jazz.

:pac:

smacl

recedite wrote: »

As such, you are only perpetuating the idea that the RCC has the right to insert itself as the default religion for the provision of indoctrination in state schools. And the idea that primary schools are the natural place for religious indoctrination, even when not owned, or even run, by the particular religion involved.

Not so much the RCC as the families who want to send their little darlings to communion and confirmation who will object strongly to being inconvenienced in doing so. Like many atheists, I couldn't care less how other people choose to deal with religious instruction for their kids, once they don't involve mine. I've no interest in begrudging them use of school premises after hours on that basis, seems like a very small price to pay for a big step forwards in terms of secular education from where I'm sitting.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

:pac:

What? You think it shouldn't go both ways or something? Of course it does.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What? You think it shouldn't go both ways or something? Of course it does.

Discrimination shouldn't go in any direction.

The status quo is heavily discriminatory in only one direction. This isn't a case of all sides equally being affected.

Fairly sure you're aware of that.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When people try to impose their ideals on other people, they should expect backlash in equal and opposite measure. Newton's laws and all that jazz.

But this is exactly what is happening. The majority (or what purports to be the majority) has been and continues to impose their ideals on other people, and this discussion is the backlash that you mention.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Discrimination shouldn't go in any direction.

The status quo is heavily discriminatory in only one direction. This isn't a case of all sides equally being affected.

Fairly sure you're aware of that.

So which direction would you suggest it would be going in if there were an attempt to exclude religious orders from the patronage system?

I'm acutely aware of course that the current education system is heavily biased in the direction of the religious orders, but the non-religious patrons also receive proportionate funding on the basis of the numbers of pupils enrolled in their schools (an equally paltry amount, it has to be said, with some schools hoping to qualify for DEIS status so that they would receive extra supports!).

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So which direction would you suggest it would be going in if there were an attempt to exclude religious orders from the patronage system?

I'm acutely aware of course that the current education system is heavily biased in the direction of the religious orders, but the non-religious patrons also receive proportionate funding on the basis of the numbers of pupils enrolled in their schools (an equally paltry amount, it has to be said, with some schools hoping to qualify for DEIS status so that they would receive extra supports!).

Discrimination begets positive discrimination I'm afraid.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

But this is exactly what is happening. The majority (or what purports to be the majority) has been and continues to impose their ideals on other people, and this discussion is the backlash that you mention.

To be absolutely clear though - I think it's a good thing that discussion is happening, I would also like to see parents who do not want their children to attend schools with a religious ethos be accommodated. That means the State funding the building of new schools. This is something of course successive Governments don't want to do as they're quite aware it would be prohibitively expensive, so the best they can hope for is to outsource education through the patronage system. They know full well the religious orders aren't going to just hand over their properties to the State, nor should they have to without compensation. That means the majority of schools will remain under religious patronage for the foreseeable future.

This education bill won't do anything for parents who don't want to send their children to schools which have a religious ethos, and that's even if it passes.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Discrimination begets positive discrimination I'm afraid.

I see, discrimination is ok as long as it's in your favour.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see, discrimination is ok as long as it's in your favour.

That's not what I said.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be absolutely clear though - I think it's a good thing that discussion is happening, I would also like to see parents who do not want their children to attend schools with a religious ethos be accommodated. That means the State funding the building of new schools. This is something of course successive Governments don't want to do as they're quite aware it would be prohibitively expensive, so the best they can hope for is to outsource education through the patronage system. They know full well the religious orders aren't going to just hand over their properties to the State, nor should they have to without compensation. That means the majority of schools will remain under religious patronage for the foreseeable future.

This education bill won't do anything for parents who don't want to send their children to schools which have a religious ethos, and that's even if it passes.

Lets just say it once more. The majority of the schools 'owned' by the RC church were not built by them, are not funded by them, and while they are indeed patrons, it is only because either the government handed them over, or they manoeuvred their way in thanks to early governments with overly (RC) religious attitudes. All those could be handed back and there is no moral reason why there should be anything owed to the religious.

The few that were built and maintained by the RC church are theirs to keep, and they are entitled to whatever ethos suits them. Of course if they want state paid teachers then they cannot impose religious requirements on those teachers. If they want piety before qualifications then they should pay for them themselves. There could be a mixture in any school, so the church employs the faith teachers and the state pays the secular teachers. This applies to any faiths.

All children are entitled to a capitation paid for them, so that would apply regardless of the school, but if a religious grouping owns the school, they should maintain the structure.

The argument that the State should pay for duplicate schools - when they are already paying staff, maintenance and construction costs in existing schools - to accommodate the various beliefs and lack of them is ridiculous.

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

That's not what I said.

You'll have to explain to me then the idea of positive discrimination that isn't discrimination in your favour seeing as your complaint is that the education system is heavily biased in favour of religious ethos schools.

If discrimination begets positive discrimination in order to redress what you see as an imbalance, how is that not discrimination which you would find acceptable?

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Lets just say it once more. The majority of the schools 'owned' by the RC church were not built by them, are not funded by them, and while they are indeed patrons, it is only because either the government handed them over, or they manoeuvred their way in thanks to early governments with overly (RC) religious attitudes. All those could be handed back and there is no moral reason why there should be anything owed to the religious.

That would be fine if we were all operating with the same moral standards. However, legally, the State would be obliged to pay compensation to the religious orders for any properties handed over to the State.

The few that were built and maintained by the RC church are theirs to keep, and they are entitled to whatever ethos suits them. Of course if they want state paid teachers then they cannot impose religious requirements on those teachers. If they want piety before qualifications then they should pay for them themselves. There could be a mixture in any school, so the church employs the faith teachers and the state pays the secular teachers. This applies to any faiths.

The number of teachers in any school is also dependent upon the numbers of pupils in the school. The issue with expecting the schools to be able to pay for their own teachers is that many schools, be they religious or non-religious, simply wouldn't be able to fund teachers salaries without State aid. It's the children would lose out in that scenario.

I wouldn't mind being expected to fund my childs education if it meant I would pay less taxes and schools would be privatised receiving no State funding whatsoever, and hiring teachers based upon criteria that fit with the ethos of the school. I'm not sure that would go down too well with teachers though, the vast majority of whom could see themselves out of a job in the morning.

All children are entitled to a capitation paid for them, so that would apply regardless of the school, but if a religious grouping owns the school, they should maintain the structure.

Absolutely, and if a greater number of pupils are enrolled in a religious ethos school, then it stands to reason that school should receive more funding and more teachers than the school with a lesser number of pupils.

The argument that the State should pay for duplicate schools - when they are already paying staff, maintenance and construction costs in existing schools - to accommodate the various beliefs and lack of them is ridiculous.

Nobody is suggesting they pay for duplicate schools, but if the argument being put forward is that the majority of parents only enrol their children in religious ethos schools because there is no alternative, then surely it would stand to reason that building more schools which aren't duplicates of already existing schools would make sense, and parents would have their Constitutional rights respected by not being obliged through necessity to send their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience.

If the idea is as popular as people here have argued that it is, then why wouldn't they be petitioning the Government to build new schools rather than the half-baked idea of allowing the Government to offer a "solution" that nobody actually really wants?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not basically anything like I'm saying at all. That's your interpretation, not mine, so I don't feel any particular need to defend your perspective.

But you are saying that it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one).

It's all right for RCs (whether devout or cultural) you get exactly what you want and the state picks up the tab for you. It's beyond selfish.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But you are saying that it's perfectly fine to reserve 90% of posts in a state funded role exclusively for observant catholics (or those who are willing to pretend to still be one).

It's all right for RCs (whether devout or cultural) you get exactly what you want and the state picks up the tab for you. It's beyond selfish.

No. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if a person who is a qualified teacher wishes to apply for a position in a religious ethos school, they know full well first of all that they will require a religious certificate, and second of all, they know full well that they will be expected to teach a religious curriculum, regardless of their own personal beliefs or lack thereof.

If a person still chooses to study to become a teacher, and they still choose to obtain a religious certificate to teach in a religious ethos school, and they still know what is expected of them with regard to teaching a religious curriculum, then complaining that they don't want to teach a religious curriculum due to their own personal philosophy or world view, is not the schools problem - it's the individuals problem.

There's nothing to prohibit that person from being employed in a religious ethos school except themselves.

I've already stated btw that I wouldn't mind if the State were to pick up the tab for funding non-religious schools, or any other type of education for that matter, but I would strongly object to a system where I was expected to contribute to an education system which excluded an education provider on the grounds that they provide a particular type of education that I don't personally adhere to.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would be fine if we were all operating with the same moral standards. However, legally, the State would be obliged to pay compensation to the religious orders for any properties handed over to the State.

Why? Compensation for what?

The number of teachers in any school is also dependent upon the numbers of pupils in the school. The issue with expecting the schools to be able to pay for their own teachers is that many schools, be they religious or non-religious, simply wouldn't be able to fund teachers salaries without State aid. It's the children would lose out in that scenario.

No, the State does not pay for those teachers that religious school require for teaching religion. If they cannot pay for a religious teacher they use a state teacher who is not required to 'be' religious. Why should someone teaching reading, writing, maths, physical education have to have conforming religious beliefs?

I wouldn't mind being expected to fund my childs education if it meant I would pay less taxes and schools would be privatised receiving no State funding whatsoever, and hiring teachers based upon criteria that fit with the ethos of the school. I'm not sure that would go down too well with teachers though, the vast majority of whom could see themselves out of a job in the morning.

I don't see this scenario in my argument, why are you bringing it up?

Absolutely, and if a greater number of pupils are enrolled in a religious ethos school, then it stands to reason that school should receive more funding and more teachers than the school with a lesser number of pupils.

Where am I disputing this - other than the point that state supplied teachers should not be expected to teach religion.

Nobody is suggesting they pay for duplicate schools, but if the argument being put forward is that the majority of parents only enrol their children in religious ethos schools because there is no alternative, then surely it would stand to reason that building more schools which aren't duplicates of already existing schools would make sense, and parents would have their Constitutional rights respected by not being obliged through necessity to send their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience.

If the idea is as popular as people here have argued that it is, then why wouldn't they be petitioning the Government to build new schools rather than the half-baked idea of allowing the Government to offer a "solution" that nobody actually really wants?

? you are just repeating the argument that I dealt with. How is it reasonable to deal with this issue by building more schools? The state has already built and maintained and supplied teachers for the majority of the exisiting schools. My taxes are supporting your religious schools, your taxes will have to support these new and pointless duplicate schools.