Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Why? Compensation for what?

The State would have to compensate the religious orders for any properties they take from them.

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 see, that's your proposal then. For a minute there I thought you were suggesting that the school pay for all teachers, hence why I said I wouldn't mind, but other people who couldn't afford to pay would lose out, and then their children wouldn't receive the type of education they want without them having to pay for it.

They shouldn't have to have confirming beliefs at all btw, but if they want to work in a school with a religious ethos, then they shouldn't be surprised that they would be expected to teach the children according to the curriculum. That's what their parents send the children there for, as opposed to another type of school where they would receive a different type of education.

? 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.

You dismissed the point as ridiculous, so I thought it might help if I fleshed it out a bit. I've explained how it would help by building more schools, and according to all data available to us, the evidence suggests that parents want more choice in the types of education available to them. Equal access to education shouldn't mean equal access to the same type of education for everyone.

I don't have any issue with supporting what might seem to you like pointless duplicate schools. If that were the case, then why the necessity for other patron bodies at all? We'd simply be back at square one if parents were forced to send their children to State schools (not that they ever could force parents to send their children to State schools anyway).

So what you would have with your State run schools is simply a minority of schools that cater to a minority of the population, while the rest of the population could still avail of free primary education in an educational facility which they prefer... sure as hell not one run by the State anyway!

looksee

This discussion is a waste of time, it is just going round in circles.

Could you apply your attention to the point I made a few posts ago, and which you have continued to ignore:

The State would have to compensate the religious orders for any properties they take from them.

The RC church is patron of very large numbers of schools that they did not build, or maintain, or staff. In a few cases they contributed land in the mid 19C, and for that they could be compensated, but otherwise, what would the church be being compensated for? Though, given the amount of money owed by the church in compensation for abuse, it probably balances out.

There is one large new secondary school near me that was built by the state, on land that the state purchased, it is staffed and fitted out by the state - and was handed to the Church. What compensation would be payable there?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State would have to compensate the religious orders for any properties they take from them.

What about the €1.3 billion of compensation the state is owed by the church for institutional child abuse? Maybe a bit of quid pro quo is in order here, as has been suggested already by Bruton. That said, I do find it a bit odd as to why anyone would want an institution found guilty of decades of systematic child abuse to run a school in the first place. Or perhaps you think the vitriol that so many Irish people have for the RCC is unfounded?

nozzferrahhtoo

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Have to laugh at the hysteria with 'stone age beliefs'

Well yes in fairness a lot of the beliefs I hear from Christians would be more accurately placed in the Bronze age, not the Stone age. While some traverse then into the Iron age.

So sure, let us be accurate here at how we place archaic unsubstantiated nonsense in the right time frames

The_Valeyard wrote: »

and 'indoctrination'

Certainly a valid point of concern. When huge swaths of people are subscribing to unsubstantiated nonsense, and one factor in that seems to be that people tend to hold on to beliefs that are instilled in early childhood......... it certainly is a valid concern to worry about early childhood indoctrination into nonsense.

Why would it not be? Nothing laughably or hysterical about it. Especially when we observe what is going on in other countries where we can observe the schools and curriculum being used to validate religious doctrines, and sometimes attack or even outright ban the education of facts that contradict religions or make the religious feel uncomfortable. I think the battle lines are clear, and why they are there.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Such laughable nonsense. Some people here are full time anti Catholic keyboard warriors.

Well I am not sure you are in a place to admonish others in this regard given the laughable nonsense you yourself peddled in your past failure to link atheists to 21st Century Social and political atrocities. Anti atheist keyboard warriors do come up with some fantastical and egrigious doozies by times.

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Seems Protestant and Muslim schools are excluded from this.

Excluded from what exactly? And how have you established that it "seems" that way?

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

. . . The RC church is patron of very large numbers of schools that they did not build, or maintain, or staff. In a few cases they contributed land in the mid 19C, and for that they could be compensated, but otherwise, what would the church be being compensated for? . . . There is one large new secondary school near me that was built by the state, on land that the state purchased, it is staffed and fitted out by the state - and was handed to the Church. What compensation would be payable there?

You'd need to look at the terms on which financial support was provided, and at other things like who exactly owns the land. And I don't know what you'd find if you looked at that.

But I don't think you can assert a general principle that, if the state provides financial support - even significant financial support - to some undertaking, it thereby acquires ownership of the property of that undertaking, or it acquires a right to assume ownership of the undertaking's property, even though nothing of the kind was proposed by the state or accepted by the undertaking at the time the financial support was provided. There are constitutional guarantees of property rights; the Supreme Court would go through that with a coach and four. If the state wants to acquire an interest in property by paying money, it needs to agree that with the owner at the time the money is paid.

smacl wrote: »

What about the €1.3 billion of compensation the state is owed by the church for institutional child abuse?

Your problem here is that the payment in respect of compensation is owed by a consortium of religious orders, while the national schools (with perhaps a few exceptions) are owned by the diocesan property trusts, a different bunch of lads. If A owes you money you can't seize the property of B purely on the basis that A and B are of the same religion, or share some other characteristic. You have to produce some rule of law or point to some relationship between them which works to make B liable for A's debts/obligations.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your problem here is that the payment in respect of compensation is owed by a consortium of religious orders, while the national schools (with perhaps a few exceptions) are owned by the diocesan property trusts, a different bunch of lads. If A owes you money you can't seize the property of B purely on the basis that A and B are of the same religion, or share some other characteristic. You have to produce some rule of law or point to some relationship between them which works to make B liable for A's debts/obligations.

Would this be as a result of the Christian brothers moving €400 million (97 schools) into a trust fund perhaps? Maybe we should just send the Pope an invoice, him being the main man in this realm so to speak.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Would this be as a result of the Christian brothers moving €400 million (97 schools) into a trust fund perhaps?

Not, it wouldn't. The national schools have always been largely diocesan operations, always held as diocesan property, and traditionally with the parish priest as manager. There'd be a small number held by various religious congregations but, even then, not necessarily the congregations who are part of the consortium signed up to the redress compensation deal.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I see, that's your proposal then.

People have run many proposals past you and others on the forum in the past but you have simply dodged them, usually by just shouting out words like "nonsense" and "That proposal would give everyone a sub standard education" without explaining WHY it is nonsense or HOW such a proposal would give a sub standard education.

However I think what a lot of people "propose" on this forum is pretty clear........ that we move as quickly and coherently towards a system where we have a curriculum to be taught and BEING taught that is not based on religion and has an enrollment process to it that is entirely blind to the religion of the students (or their parents or their teachers) applying to access it or teach it.

Then people's hobbies, be they martial arts, yoga, Catholicism, or whatever can be appended outside this core curriculum, and even facilitated by those facilities, in a modular after school system. Much the same way as people used to go to my secondary school after the school day to attend courses on Martial Arts, yoga, creative writing, arts and so forth.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

This discussion is a waste of time, it is just going round in circles.

Could you apply your attention to the point I made a few posts ago, and which you have continued to ignore:


The RC church is patron of very large numbers of schools that they did not build, or maintain, or staff. In a few cases they contributed land in the mid 19C, and for that they could be compensated, but otherwise, what would the church be being compensated for? Though, given the amount of money owed by the church in compensation for abuse, it probably balances out.

There is one large new secondary school near me that was built by the state, on land that the state purchased, it is staffed and fitted out by the state - and was handed to the Church. What compensation would be payable there?

I'm not ignoring your points, I thought at least it had been established by now that the State would have to compensate the religious orders for what properties they would want to acquire -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

What about the €1.3 billion of compensation the state is owed by the church for institutional child abuse? Maybe a bit of quid pro quo is in order here, as has been suggested already by Bruton. That said, I do find it a bit odd as to why anyone would want an institution found guilty of decades of systematic child abuse to run a school in the first place. Or perhaps you think the vitriol that so many Irish people have for the RCC is unfounded?

There won't be any quid pro quo, and Bruton knows it. What's actually unfounded and what would be wrong IMO would be to judge people guilty by association. If other people want to assume people are guilty by association, that's their prerogative.

looksee

https://www.into.ie/ROI/Publications/PublicationsPre2000/PlaceReligious1991.pdf

This whole article is interesting, but section 1 starting on page 6 is the most relevant to this discussion.

Section 1.4.3 on page 18 discusses the obligation of a teacher to teach religion.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There won't be any quid pro quo, and Bruton knows it. What's actually unfounded and what would be wrong IMO would be to judge people guilty by association. If other people want to assume people are guilty by association, that's their prerogative.

Nothing to do with guilt by association, we're talking about guilt by complicity at an organisational level going all the way up the hierarchy by attempting to hide and cover up issues that should have been brought to the attention of the judiciary. This type of organisational cover up goes way beyond personal liability on the part of the abuser, which is why the state is looking for compensation at organisational level.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Nothing to do with guilt by association, we're talking about guilt by complicity at an organisational level going all the way up the hierarchy by attempting to hide and cover up issues that should have been brought to the attention of the judiciary. This type of organisational cover up goes way beyond personal liability on the part of the abuser, which is why the state is looking for compensation at organisational level.

It has everything to do with guilt by association when your point was this -

smacl wrote: »

That said, I do find it a bit odd as to why anyone would want an institution found guilty of decades of systematic child abuse to run a school in the first place. Or perhaps you think the vitriol that so many Irish people have for the RCC is unfounded?

How else would I be expected to read that other than the suggestion that I too am "guilty by complicity" because I am not willing to judge people guilty by association, which is the influencing factor behind the vitriol that so many Irish people have for the RCC?

You're having to conflate two different issues to suggest that because I support the right of parents to choose to raise their children in the Roman Catholic faith (of which part of that is a Roman Catholic education), that I don't object to child abuse or that I must be somehow complicit in it. I can understand where the vitriol is coming from and why, but one has nothing to do with the other. I can object to child abuse and still prefer that my child receives an education in accordance with the Roman Catholic faith.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're having to conflate two different issues to suggest that because I support the right of parents to choose to raise their children in the Roman Catholic faith (of which part of that is a Roman Catholic education), that I don't object to child abuse or that I must be somehow complicit in it. I can understand where the vitriol is coming from and why, but one has nothing to do with the other. I can object to child abuse and still prefer that my child receives an education in accordance with the Roman Catholic faith.

Not at all. The RCC is not an individual it is an organisation in many ways not unlike a large corporation. Members of the RCC hierarchy are agents of that organisation and act on its behalf. Where a priest commits a crime while acting on behalf of the church, the church is liable to be considered at fault in addition to the priest. This becomes compounded when the church tries to cover up the crime as has so often been the case with child abuse, which is where complicity comes into play. It does not imply members of the laity are complicity unless they too chose to turn a blind eye to such abuse when they become aware of it.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

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.

I agree its not huge deal, but you are mistaken in thinking it is necessary to make such concessions, or that ET schools need to "to pay a price" to justify their existence. The whole notion that primary schools are the right place for religious indoctrination is something that will eventually have to be purged from society.
Maybe not yet, and not by the ET schools movement, but some day it will.

Just for comparison, here's how it works in 3 different primary school types when communion time comes round. None of these schools is a catholic parish school, so by definition the parents of these kids are probably not going to be the most conservative of religious of people, otherwise they would have sent their kids to the local RC school.

CNC school; new "community national school" model school that Minister Bruton is pushing. RC kids get their indoctrination classes during school hours. Other kids segregated off into different groups.

ET School; RC kids get their indoctrination classes after school, on the premises.

CoI School; RC kids get their indoctrination classes after school, but on the premises of the local RC school. Major inconvenience for parents and for the RC school. Still, if they want it....

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Not at all. The RCC is not an individual it is an organisation in many ways not unlike a large corporation. Members of the RCC hierarchy are agents of that organisation and act on its behalf. Where a priest commits a crime while acting on behalf of the church, the church is liable to be considered at fault in addition to the priest. This becomes compounded when the church tries to cover up the crime as has so often been the case with child abuse, which is where complicity comes into play. It does not imply members of the laity are complicity unless they too chose to turn a blind eye to such abuse when they become aware of it.

Well... fairly unlike a large corporation. The very idea of 'members of the RCC hierarchy' ignores the fact of hundreds, if not thousands, of distinct hierarchies within Church affiliated bodies, where Franciscans are not accountable to, never mind agents of, the Dominicans, or the Sisters of Mercy, or even the Holy See, nor do they act on behalf of these other organisations. So the Church as a whole is not liable to be considered at fault (by anyone empowered to make such a judgement in law or fact) in addition to a Priest who was not actually acting on behalf of the Church, but rather an organisation associated with it. Complicity in criminal activity can obviously only include those complicit in it, whether they're members of the laity or the clergy obviously makes no difference to the facts of their participation.

smacl

The goal here is to get a decent secular education for our kids. Making life more awkward for the local Catholics on a point of principle isn't part of the agenda. Removing blocking factors to get a secular education is however very important as there are many. What the CoI get up to as another seemingly protected religious community doesn't really influence this. As a parent idealism will always take a back seat to realism, and imho rightly so.

Absolam

That's the goal for some, but I daresay it's not the goal of most, or even many. For most I think the goal is to get the most advantageous education possible for their kids, and whether or not it's secular comes way way way behind academic achievement, extra-curricular facilities, locality, reputation, affordability, and a host of other concerns. And there's not exactly a plethora of secular bodies looking to provide any kind of education to parents, never mind the most advantageous, is there? I can only think of one, maybe three or four if you broaden the definition. Whereas there are dozens of religious bodies who are finding an appetite for their services....

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

And there's not exactly a plethora of secular bodies looking to provide any kind of education to parents....

Similar to the way there are not many churches for atheists, or clubs for non-stamp collectors.
In most countries there only needs to be one secular body doing this work; the state.
In our country, the state delegates most of the work to religious bodies, while still picking up the tab itself. Its bizarre when you think about it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Similar to the way there are not many churches for atheists, or clubs for non-stamp collectors.

I don't think so; as far as I'm aware the children of secular parents need to be educated, unlike atheists who don't need a church. Though I'll agree there are many many clubs that are not for stamp collectors, though stamp collectors are not prohibited from attending.

recedite wrote: »

In most countries there only needs to be one secular body doing this work; the state.

I don't think there are any countries where the State is the only body providing education though. OK, maybe China, and a few other die-hard totalitarian States, but I think 'most' countries are happy to allow other bodies to provide education. If there needs only be one, then I suppose we have one now in SSI, so no need for the State to bother getting involved.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think there are any countries where the State is the only body providing education though. OK, maybe China, and a few other die-hard totalitarian States, but I think 'most' countries are happy to allow other bodies to provide education. If there needs only be one, then I suppose we have one now in SSI, so no need for the State to bother getting involved.

Would you like to look at, say, the EU countries and tell us who is running the education system in each? Yes there will be a few schools operated by other than the state - there are some 20% of private including religious schools in France, but the great majority are state - and the French state insists on secular education regardless of who is offering it. I don't think anyone would object to an option of around 20% religious schools in Ireland, but the figures are reversed - more than reversed - here.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Would you like to look at, say, the EU countries and tell us who is running the education system in each? Yes there will be a few schools operated by other than the state - there are some 20% of private including religious schools in France, but the great majority are state - and the French state insists on secular education regardless of who is offering it. I don't think anyone would object to an option of around 20% religious schools in Ireland, but the figures are reversed - more than reversed - here.

I think we all understand the difference between running the education system and providing education; manifestly the Irish State also runs the education system, but is not obliged to provide education, secular or otherwise. I certainly wouldn't object if there were sufficient demand for secular bodies providing education that they could rise to be 80% of provision... though I'd be doubtful that demand exists. If it does, there's a secular education provider willing to cater to it, so I guess we'll see how successful they are.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I think we all understand the difference between running the education system and providing education.

Au contraire, I think you are the only one around here that claims to understand it
I gather it involves having teachers on the state payroll and giving them all the public sector pensions and benefits, while not actually calling them state employees. Or something like that.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Au contraire, I think you are the only one around here that claims to understand it
I gather it involves having teachers on the state payroll and giving them all the public sector pensions and benefits, while not actually calling them state employees. Or something like that.

I suspect any lack of understanding at this stage owes far more to deliberately wilful ignorance than lack of information

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I suspect any lack of understanding at this stage owes far more to deliberately wilful ignorance than lack of information

I have to agree with that Absolam.

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

...though I'd be doubtful that demand exists.

Based on...?
What makes you think that the majority of demand is for specifically catholic run schools?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

That's the goal for some, but I daresay it's not the goal of most, or even many. For most I think the goal is to get the most advantageous education possible for their kids, and whether or not it's secular comes way way way behind academic achievement, extra-curricular facilities, locality, reputation, affordability, and a host of other concerns.

That's fair enough but really amounts to whataboutary in the context of a discussion about religious discrimination in the enrollment process or with respect to the actual point of my post which was that a secular agenda such as the ET one does not include working against people's religious beliefs or practices.

Absolam

King Mob wrote: »

Based on...?
What makes you think that the majority of demand is for specifically catholic run schools?

I don't think the majority of demand is for specifically catholic run schools. I think, like I said, that whether or not it's secular comes way way way behind academic achievement, extra-curricular facilities, locality, reputation, affordability, and a host of other concerns, so that obviously must also apply to whether or not it's Catholic as well. My doubt that sufficient demand for secular bodies providing education exists that they could rise to be 80% of provision is based on the fact that so far only one such body has come forward to offer educational services, and that body has yet to win patronage of even one school. If there were such substantive demand, I think there would be more bodies trying to fulfil it, and becoming patrons in areas where parents are expressing that demand.

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think the majority of demand is for specifically catholic run schools. I think, like I said, that whether or not it's secular comes way way way behind academic achievement, extra-curricular facilities, locality, reputation, affordability, and a host of other concerns, so that obviously must also apply to whether or not it's Catholic as well. My doubt that sufficient demand for secular bodies providing education exists that they could rise to be 80% of provision is based on the fact that so far only one such body has come forward to offer educational services, and that body has yet to win patronage of even one school. If there were such substantive demand, I think there would be more bodies trying to fulfil it, and becoming patrons in areas where parents are expressing that demand.

Ah, that simple then...
Nope, no way the situation could have more factors involved and there's no need to get a more accurate measure of demand...
Good job.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough but really amounts to whataboutary in the context of a discussion about religious discrimination in the enrollment process or with respect to the actual point of my post which was that a secular agenda such as the ET one does not include working against people's religious beliefs or practices.

But not at all whataboutery when addressing the notion that the goal here is to get a decent secular education for our kids. In fact it's entirely to the point; we ought not to mistake the idea that what a small number of people would like is actually THE goal. In the context of a discussion about education, THE goal is the best education possible, and driving an anti-theist agenda is somewhat less important. Ireland ranks reasonably highly in the OECD PISA study (8 places ahead of secular France, interestingly), and I wouldn't like to see us pursue a course that would leave students with a less than decent, yet secular, education.