Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

yoganinja

J C wrote: »

Recent statement from the Catholic Primary Schools’ Management Association on the religious preference rule in admissions policies of Church-run schools, which has been brought to my attention:-

"The Catholic Primary Schools’ Management Association (CPSMA) expressed disappointed with the Minister’s proposals as they have failed to address in any way the current difficulty in oversubscription being experience in a small number of areas in the State.

The CPSMA is unaware of any case of a child being refused admission to a Catholic School solely on the basis of the lack of a baptismal certificate: religious affiliation only comes into play in cases of over subscription; even then, in all cases that we are aware of, children who are not Catholic have been accepted ahead of Catholics due to the sibling rule.

The simple fact is that, in oversubscribed schools, the vast majority of unsuccessful applicants are Catholic.

The CPSMA points out that oversubscription arises not from a lack of baptismal certificates but from Government failure to deliver sufficient school places for local school needs. The Minister’s proposals do nothing to address that. His proposal to treat schools of different faiths in an unequal manner is unusual and some constitutional issues may arise from them."

It seems to be pretty logical stuff ... which shows where efforts, which will bear fruit should be directed ... to providing extra school places ... instead of trying to make choices about how to divide existing inadequate places ... that would test the wisdom of Solomon.

It's hardly a binary thing though is it? It's entirely possible (with or without the wisdom of Solomon) to agree that choosing to give pupils places on the basis of religion isn't really what a state funded service should do AND making sure everyone has access to a local school place

J C

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Of course there are those whose interest it is to keep up the status quo and those who are blatantly trolling. The former will eventually retire or be moved aside and the latter are only doing it as a circle jerk anyway.
In the end Ireland might be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century, people will get used to it and those few cranks and malcontents who don't like will just sit down the pub and mutter into their pints.
As a German I am simply baffled that this is even a matter for discussion.
Yes there was religion in my school, but there was the choice of Catholic, Protestant or Ethics for non religious pupils. But the school itself was not religious, your religion or lack thereof didn't matter for gaining entry into the school.
That was the early 80's in Germany and its still light years ahead of Ireland now.
It's sad and pathetic that some fossils and biggots still argue otherwise is acceptable.

This is the case in non-religious schools in Ireland as well ... I was in a secular school ... and the local CoI rector came in to do religion classes with the non-Roman Catholics.
... and Germany isn't exactly a model of separation of church and state ... with their government still enforcing church taxes on its population, whether religious or not!!!
... and as for it's treatment of religious minorities in the recent past, I'll save your blushes with a dignified silence on that.
Before engaging in emotional outbursts ... you need to be cogniscant of Irish History ... where Penal Laws prevented Roman Catholics from participating in normal economic life, having church buildings or schools and provided a state bounty for the killing of Roman Catholic priests.

These laws only ended with Roman Catholic Emancipation in 1829 ... and there immediately followed a massive church and school building project funded by the ordinary Roman Catholics of Ireland ... and nearly all of this infrastructure is still with us.
Ironically, the current 'turf war' over who controls schools is being fought over this very infrastructure ... so, I doubt very much if Ireland's Roman Catholics ... whose ancestors came through the horror and the persecution of the Penal Laws ... are about to hand over their hard-won schools and church infrastructure, just because a few pseudo-liberals and assorted secularists demand that they do so.

... and BTW we're not in the 20th century ... so it's actually you who needs to be dragged into the 21st century, by the looks of things !!!

robindch

JC -

A little reminder here.

Thanks.

J C

yoganinja wrote: »

It's hardly a binary thing though is it? It's entirely possible (with or without the wisdom of Solomon) to agree that choosing to give pupils places on the basis of religion isn't really what a state funded service should do AND making sure everyone has access to a local school place

Its the job of the state to ensure every child has access to a school place ... and building extra school places is obviously the way to do so.
Using the shortage of school places in a tiny number of good schools to 'shoe-horn' is secularism and atheism into every school is totally indefesible.

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC -

A little reminder here.

Thanks.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions about me and my posting style ... but as I'm a guest on your forum, and subject to your authority here when I post, I will obey your instruction to only post on the mega-thread.

I note that the post that you cite against me as the reason for silencing me is the following :-

J C wrote: »

... so you guys do only believe in freedom and respect for those whom ye agree with !!!
... which shows up the so-called 'respect for diversity' that the pseudo-liberals spout about is just a self-serving sham ... that they should be called out on, every time they say it!!!:)

dr.fuzzenstein

J C wrote: »

This is the case in non-religious schools in Ireland as well ... I was in a secular school ... and the local CoI rector came in to do religion classes with the non-Roman Catholics.
... and Germany isn't exactly a model of separation of church and state ... with their government still enforcing church taxes on its population, whether religious or not!!!
... and as for it's treatment of religious minorities in the recent past, I'll save your blushes with a dignified silence on that.

The bit on bold, no, if you are not a member of a church, you don't pay. As for the following sentence, what's that? You didn't want to to write "But! But....Nazis!!!"?

Before engaging in emotional outbursts ... you need to be cogniscant of Irish History ... where Penal Laws prevented Roman Catholics from participating in normal economic life, having church buildings or schools and provided bounties for the killing of Roman Catholic priests.
These laws only ended with Roman Catholic Emancipation in 1829 ... and there immediately followed a massive church and school building project funded by the ordinary Roman Catholics of Ireland ... and nearly all of this infrastructure is still with us.
Ironically, the current 'turf war' over who controls schools is being fought over this very infrastructure ... so, I doubt very much if Ireland's Roman Catholics ... who put up with the persecution of the Penal Laws ... are about to hand over their hard-won schools and church infrastructure just because a few pseudo-liberals and assorted secularists demand that do so.

That is genuinely interesting, one has to always be aware of one's history. But you have to think, is "we've been doing it like this since 1829!" a good enough reason to carry on the same way? Yes, there was 800 years of British rule, but does modern life have to be shaped in certain ways because of historical events?
In Europe in general there have been centuries (even thousands of years) of war, discrimination of certain groups for political or religious reasons, suppression, hate and intolerance. If we though "Oh, we can't do this in such and such a way because of the 30 year war, the French, The Swedish, the Spanish, the Dutch...", we'd get absolutely nothing done. At some stage you need to appreciate your history, but not let it shape your actions because "But, 800 years ago!"

J C

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

... if you are not a member of a church, you don't pay. ...

That is genuinely interesting, one has to always be aware of one's history. But you have to think, is "we've been doing it like this since 1829!" a good enough reason to carry on the same way? Yes, there was 800 years of British rule, but does modern life have to be shaped in certain ways because of historical events?
In Europe in general there have been centuries (even thousands of years) of war, discrimination of certain groups for political or religious reasons, suppression, hate and intolerance. If we though "Oh, we can't do this in such and such a way because of the 30 year war, the French, The Swedish, the Spanish, the Dutch...", we'd get absolutely nothing done. At some stage you need to appreciate your history, but not let it shape your actions because "But, 800 years ago!"

With the indulgence of the mods I'll make a quick reply and then go over to the mega thread.
I stand corrected on the application of church taxes to non-religious in Germany ... but is it not ironic that you come from a country which collects money for churches ... yet you deride Ireland for not taking over church property?

I agree with you that we shouldn't be prisoners of history ... but neither should we ignore history ... in case we repeat the unacceptable parts of it.
... and depriving the RCC and its members of their school property would actually be a repetition of (part of) the Penal Laws... which BTW also applied to other Christians such a Presbyterians, as well !!!
... and the last of the Penal Laws in Ireland were only repealed with the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
Some of the principles of the Penal Laws still remain on the British Statute Books with the continued requirement for the PM to not be a Roman Catholic, for example.

The Penal Laws were, according to Edmund Burke "a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man."
Quite an admission for an 'estblishment figure' like Burke ... but his prime motivation for saying so, was to get the government to re-consider the effects such oppressive legisation was having on formenting revolution in Ireland and America ... and how right he was!!

... and you can read all about them here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland)

In the context of school ownership and control the following Penal Law (repealed in 1782) has a particular resonance:-

'No person of the popish religion shall publicly or in private houses teach school, or instruct youth in learning within this realm' upon pain of twenty pounds fine and three months in prison for every such offence."

... and the principle expoused by some people on this thread that no priest or clergyman should ever be allowed cross the threshold of any school because religion should only ever be a private matter, has resonance with the following rather oppresive Penal Law:-
Quote Wikipedia
"After the Act of Settlement in 1652, Catholics were barred from membership in the Irish Parliament, and the major landholders had most of their lands confiscated under the Adventurers Act. They were also banned from living in towns for a short period. Catholic clergy were expelled from the country and were liable to instant execution when found. Many recusants had to worship in secret at gathering places (such as Mass rocks) in the countryside."

robindch

J C wrote: »

I note that the post that you cite against me as the reason for silencing me is the following :-

"Silencing you?" Heaven forfend! Have a sense of proportion

You haven't been silenced - you've just had the soapbox which the forum provides to you moved to an area where all the other forum members don't have to listen to you if they don't want to.

Think of it as a bit of civic-minded ear-protection.

yoganinja

J C wrote: »

Its the job of the state to ensure every child has access to a school place ... and building extra school places is obviously the way to do so.
Using the shortage of school places in a tiny number of good schools to 'shoe-horn' is secularism and atheism into every school is totally indefesible.

Please enlighten me how ensuring that every child in the state has equal access to state funded education irresoective of their religion is shoe horning secularism and or atheism into every school ?

evolving_doors

J C wrote: »

Recent statement from the Catholic Primary Schools’ Management Association on the religious preference rule in admissions policies of Church-run schools, which has been brought to my attention:-

"The Catholic Primary Schools’ Management Association (CPSMA) expressed disappointed with the Minister’s proposals as they have failed to address in any way the current difficulty in oversubscription being experience in a small number of areas in the State.

The CPSMA is unaware of any case of a child being refused admission to a Catholic School solely on the basis of the lack of a baptismal certificate: religious affiliation only comes into play in cases of over subscription; even then, in all cases that we are aware of, children who are not Catholic have been accepted ahead of Catholics due to the sibling rule.

The simple fact is that, in oversubscribed schools, the vast majority of unsuccessful applicants are Catholic.

The CPSMA points out that oversubscription arises not from a lack of baptismal certificates but from Government failure to deliver sufficient school places for local school needs. The Minister’s proposals do nothing to address that. His proposal to treat schools of different faiths in an unequal manner is unusual and some constitutional issues may arise from them."

It seems to be pretty logical stuff ... which shows where efforts, which will bear fruit should be directed ... to providing extra school places... instead of trying to make choices about how to divide existing inadequate places ... that would test the wisdom of Solomon.

Note the persistent muddying of the waters yet again. Conflating discrimination with oversubscription.

J C

yoganinja wrote: »

Please enlighten me how ensuring that every child in the state has equal access to state funded education irresoective of their religion is shoe horning secularism and or atheism into every school ?

It is 'shoe horning secularism and or atheism into every school' ... if it becomes a requirement for every state-funded school to have a secular or non-religious ethos.
Please don't ask me any further questions on this thread, as I cannot continue posting on it.

J C

robindch wrote: »

"Silencing you?" Heaven forfend! Have a sense of proportion

You haven't been silenced - you've just had the soapbox which the forum provides to you moved to an area where all the other forum members don't have to listen to you if they don't want to.

Think of it as a bit of civic-minded ear-protection.

I'm being silenced on every thread other than the mega thread ... and by the looks of things, I could also be silenced there, any time you like, as well ... for the reason of 'civic-minded ear-protection' as you put it.

Nobody has to listen to me, if they don't want to ... they can avert their eyes or put me on ignore.

... or better still, point out any error of fact or logic, that I post.

Anyway, Robin, I thank you for your allowing me finish off my positings on this thread ... and I'll move quietly to the 'other' thread, in accordance with your direction.

yoganinja

J C wrote: »

It is 'shoe horning secularism and or atheism into every school' ... if it becomes a requirement for every state-funded school to have a secular or non-religious ethos.
Please don't ask me any further questions on this thread, as I cannot continue posting on it.

Access to schools is a separate issue. The issue of whether their should be a religious ethos in state funded schools is a different one.

J C

yoganinja wrote: »

Access to schools is a separate issue. The issue of whether their should be a religious ethos in state funded schools is a different one.

Access to schools is only an issue where there aren't enough school places in an area ... and the solution is obviously to provide new school places.
The issue of access and ethos do co-incide when a child gets access to a school and then it's parents start objecting to the schools ethos ... or where parents don't want their children to attend the nearest school because its a church-run school ... and they then demand that it be secualrised to facilitate their worldview, citing state funding as the reason that this should be done.

Please stop answering my posts on this thread ... as I fear that I'm stretching the mods patience by answering your postings, after I have been told to stop posting here.

yoganinja

J C wrote: »

Access to schools is only an issue where there aren't enough school places in an area ... and the solution is obviously to provide new school places.
The issue of access and ethos do co-incide when a child gets access to a school and then it's parents start objecting to the schools ethos ... or where parents don't want their children to attend the nearest school because its a church-run school ... and they then demand that it be secualrised to facilitate their worldview, citing state funding as the reason that this should be done.

Please stop answering my posts on this thread ... as I fear that I'm stretching the mods patience by answering your postings, after I have been told to stop posting here.

I was just making an observation on the issue of conflating the two. Some parents who don't have kids who are baptised understandably just want access to their local school on the same terms as other children, some want access AND complete secularisation

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

Or, we might consider the possibility that educational standards in Irish schools are simply higher than they are in countries who achieve poorer results (like Germany, the UK, France, the US, etc etc).

Or maybe the tests here are easier than in other countries, if Irish kids are doing better.

evolving_doors

kylith wrote: »

Or maybe the tests here are easier than in other countries, if Irish kids are doing better.

Naw the PISA tests are the same around the globe.... although the countries can decide which schools are tested!

evolving_doors

J C wrote: »

Access to schools is only an issue where there aren't enough school places in an area ... and the solution is obviously to provide new school places.
The issue of access and ethos do co-incide when a child gets access to a school and then it's parents start objecting to the schools ethos ... or where parents don't want their children to attend the nearest school because its a church-run school ... and they then demand that it be secualrised to facilitate their worldview, citing state funding as the reason that this should be done.

Please stop answering my posts on this thread ... as I fear that I'm stretching the mods patience by answering your postings, after I have been told to stop posting here.

Well there's also the other issue of deciding on an entrance criteria.
If that entrance criteria includes putting someone without a baptism cert behind someone else then it's discrimination.

Lack of places is wrong.

Discriminating on the grounds that a child isn't part of a certain religion is also wrong.

So there are actually 2 wrongs.... whereas others will have us believe there is one.... and propose 'providing better choice' as the solution.

J C

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Well there's also the other issue of deciding on an entrance criteria.
If that entrance criteria includes putting someone without a baptism cert behind someone else then it's discrimination.

Lack of places is wrong.

Discriminating on the grounds that a child isn't part of a certain religion is also wrong.

So there are actually 2 wrongs.... whereas others will have us believe there is one.... and propose 'providing better choice' as the solution.

All entrance criteria discriminate ... but the independent variable is the lack of places ... as the entrance criteria are only triggered when there is a lack of places.
So ... the way to solve both 'wrongs' is to increase school places.

yoganinja

J C wrote: »

All entrance criteria discriminate ... but the independent variable is the lack of places ... as the entrance criteria are only triggered when there is a lack of places.
So ... the way to solve both 'wrongs' is to increase school places.

Rubbish ....
Even if there were ample school places in an area oversubscription still can and does arise - some schools are always going to be more popular than others for lots of reasons, when and if that happens priority still should never be dicided on on the basis of religion in a state funded school

looksee

Mod: please do not respond to JC's posts on this thread. JC please do not post in threads other than the Creationism thread.

Akrasia

yoganinja wrote: »

Rubbish ....
Even if there were ample school places in an area oversubscription still can and does arise - some schools are always going to be more popular than others for lots of reasons, when and if that happens priority still should never be dicided on on the basis of religion in a state funded school

Exactly. Not all schools are the same. Some schools are better than others. Why should Christian families have a choice of every local school while non christians get to the back of the queue?

dr.fuzzenstein

J C wrote: »

Its the job of the state to ensure every child has access to a school place ... and building extra school places is obviously the way to do so.
Using the shortage of school places in a tiny number of good schools to 'shoe-horn' is secularism and atheism into every school is totally indefesible.

Quoting with apologies to the mods.
So yes, the state should provide school places. The state has long enough allowed this situation to carry on and in return turned a blind eye to the Catholic strangle-hold on education, because let's face it, the Irish state likes a free ride and doesn't like paying out on silly inconveniences like education, transport, health-care, etc.
There should be state run schools completely separate from any religious institutions and while it may be acceptable to teach religion on a voluntary basis, religion must not form the basis of those schools.
Schools in the 21st century should educate children in scientific matters and the church is not the organization to do that.
And I don't care if you quote the history of the entire world, that's the long and short of it.

looksee

Mod: Dr F you were asked not to respond to JC, you could have made that reply without the quote.

Anyone quoting JC on this thread (or any other that he cannot post in) will be carded.

evolving_doors

Edit: missed mod warning

Discriminating on the grounds of religion is wrong though.
What has a child's religion got to do with education anyway?

recedite

looksee wrote: »

Anyone quoting JC on this thread (or any other that he cannot post in) will be carded.

Eh? How is he posting here, if he can't post here?
JC works in mysterious ways.

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

It's hardly a binary thing though is it? It's entirely possible (with or without the wisdom of Solomon) to agree that choosing to give pupils places on the basis of religion isn't really what a state funded service should do AND making sure everyone has access to a local school place

I think it's fair to say that a great deal of the discussion is because many people wouldn't agree that choosing to give pupils places on the basis of religion isn't really what a state funded service should do. My own feeling is that as long as the state funding is blind to the religions (or lack of) involved, then a parents' decision to place their child in a school based on their religion is up to them.

yoganinja wrote: »

Please enlighten me how ensuring that every child in the state has equal access to state funded education irresoective of their religion is shoe horning secularism and or atheism into every school ?

In fairness, it's not. But insisting that the schools providing that state funded education be secular is.

yoganinja wrote: »

Rubbish ....Even if there were ample school places in an area oversubscription still can and does arise - some schools are always going to be more popular than others for lots of reasons, when and if that happens priority still should never be dicided on on the basis of religion in a state funded school

That's certainly an opinion, but an opposing view would be when a school is very popular it should give priority to those who most value it's raison d'etre; in the case of a religious school that's religious students. Though I'm not sure how, if there are ample places, oversubscription could arise? If a school is oversubscribed then spaces are pretty much definitively not ample.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Note the persistent muddying of the waters yet again. Conflating discrimination with oversubscription.

Not to muddy the waters, but I think the point they're making is that children aren't missing out on places in schools because of discrimination. The only reason selection criteria are being applied at all is because there are insufficient places, and when that's the case, someone will be discriminated against regardless of the criteria. Granted, it may be criteria you agree with, but that's just a matter of taste.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

Or maybe the tests here are easier than in other countries, if Irish kids are doing better.

Because Irish kids doing better is more unlikely that Irish schools getting easier tests in an international assessment? That kind of smacks of confirmation bias, especially if you're coming to that conclusion without even bothering to consider the OECDs methodology.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

There should be state run schools completely separate from any religious institutions and while it may be acceptable to teach religion on a voluntary basis, religion must not form the basis of those schools.
Schools in the 21st century should educate children in scientific matters and the church is not the organization to do that.

That's a rip roaring manifesto right enough. I'd be inclined to disagree myself; I think there should be no State run schools at all. If parents want religion taught to their children in schools, and want religious institutions running them, let them at it. Schools in the 21st Century should educate children in as broad and diverse a fashion as possible and do their utmost to avoid stamping out one size fits all State approved drones. We should be able to accommodate both the long and the short of these things...

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Discriminating on the grounds of religion is wrong though. What has a child's religion got to do with education anyway?

Some discrimination on the grounds of religion may be wrong, sure. There are occasions, however, when it makes sense too.

I think it's fair to say that for those who are religious, their religion has something to do with everything, and education is not excepted from that.

yoganinja

Interesting contribution to the topic by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - although in fairness he has been advocating a serious change in school patronage for the best part of a decade
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/archbishop-martin-proved-right-about-school-patronage-1.3150908?mode=amp#.WWYIe_IDzg8.twitter

recedite

Very good. But you would wonder why the patronage of Irish state funded public schools is being discussed in Bavaria.
It must be quite boring for the Bavarians, and it seems totally pointless for those of us in Ireland.